Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
October 25, 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. (3,604 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3677 Electronic Coils, Transformers, and Other Inductors
334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing
intellectual property
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153334
US
Federal Court
Nevada
United States District Court
John Hanson (plaintiff); unknown (defendants)
Pro

Summary

Damages expert did not use “supercharged” version of disclaimed 25% rule of thumb, but analyzed each of Georgia-Pacific factors to predict reasonable royalty rate, district court finds.
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
PDF, Size: 29 KB

See Also

Did Patent Expert ‘Supercharge’ the 25% Rule of Thumb?

Legal and Court Case Update
January 2013

Damages expert did not use “supercharged” version of disclaimed 25% rule of thumb, but analyzed each of Georgia-Pacific factors to predict reasonable royalty rate, district court finds.

This article also appears in:
Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, Fourth Edition
Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, Second Edition