Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
December 16, 2021
3841 Surgical and Medical Instruments and Apparatus
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
intellectual property, expert testimony
damages, lost profits, patent infringement, royalty rate, reasonable royalty, reliability, patent, infringement

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240473
US
Federal Court
Tennessee
United States District Court
Ivan T. Hoffmann
Jon P. McCalla

Summary

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.
Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)
PDF, Size: 232 KB

See Also

Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Is the Subject of Cross-Examination but Not Exclusion

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.