University of Pittsburgh v. David W. Townsend

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
March 30, 2007

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (14,353 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
tort
University of Pittsburgh v. David W. Townsend
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24620
Federal Court
Tennessee
United States District Court
Andrew R. Tillman, Christian M. Best, Daniel F. Diffley, David G. Oberdick, J. Chadwick Hatmaker, J. Patrick Elsevier, John P. Fry, Michael Yablonski, Patrick R. Riley, Randall L. Allen, Travis J. Graham
Robert Woolridge, Thomas Lewellen, Mark Gleason (plaintiff)
Shirley, Jr.

Summary

Court considers motion to exclude expert testimony for their admitted destruction of draft reports and emails, and for their use of reasonable royalty methodology.
Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Townsend
PDF, Size: 152 KB

See Also

Federal Court Clarifies Rule on Discovery of Draft Valuation Reports

Legal and Court Case Update
June 2007

Court considers motion to exclude expert testimony for their admitted destruction of draft reports and emails and for their use of reasonable royalty methodology.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition