Complex Facts Test Patent Experts’ Apportionment Skills

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 21 No. 10
Legal and Court Case Update
October 2015

Access the Full Article

This article is 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. (1,746 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7372 Prepackaged Software
511210 Software Publishers
intellectual property
damages, patent infringement, royalty rate, daubert, expert testimony, reasonable royalty, royalty base, rule 702, apportionment
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (I)
2015 U.S. LEXIS 91528
July 14, 2015
US
Federal Court
California
United States District Court
Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar (plaintiff); Julie Davis (defendant)
Freeman

Summary

Court admits apportionment based on lines of infringing code and on value defendant places on product features in accused products but excludes apportionment using forward citation analysis for failure to show value of asserted patents in marketplace.

See Also

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (I)

Full Text of Court Cases
July 14, 2015

Court admits apportionment based on lines of infringing code and on value defendant places on product features in accused products but excludes apportionment using forward citation analysis for failure to show value of asserted patents in marketplace.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 21 No. 10
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition