Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
January 29, 2014

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. (1,798 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7371 Computer Programming Services
541511 Custom Computer Programming Services
intellectual property
patent infringement, daubert, expert testimony, georgia-pacific, reasonable royalty, rules of thumb, lump sum license, nash bargaining solution
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10745
US
Federal Court
Delaware
United States District Court
Creighton Hoffman (plaintiff); Christopher Martinez (defendant)
Andrews

Summary

Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)
PDF, Size: 321 KB

See Also

Nash Bargaining Solution a ‘Non-Starter’ for Royalty Analysis

Legal and Court Case Update
May 2014

Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”

This article also appears in:
Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, Fourth Edition
Daubert Challenges: The Courts Raise the Bar
Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, Second Edition