Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (III)

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
November 6, 2012

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in these products:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (2,493 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3674 Semiconductors and Related Devices
334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
intellectual property
daubert, economic damages & lost profits
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (III)
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158718
US
Federal Court
Pennsylvania
United States District Court
Catherine M. Lawton (plaintiff); Creighton Hoffman (defendants)
Fischer

Summary

District court denies defendants’ pretrial motion claiming expert failed to consider non-infringing alternatives in her apportionment analysis and affirms Daubert ruling in favor of plaintiff.
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (III)
PDF, Size: 225 KB

See Also

In Billion-Dollar IP Case, Expert’s Mention of Total Revenue Does Not Violate Uniloc

Legal and Court Case Update
February 2013

District court rejects defendants’ Daubert challenge finding plaintiff’s expert’s reference to total revenue was legitimate starting point of apportionment analysis and did not amount to use of Entire Market Value Rule.

This article also appears in:
Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, Fourth Edition
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition