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

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 19 No. 1
Legal and Court Case Update
January 2013

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (765 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
October 25, 2012
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.

See Also

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

Full Text of Court Cases
October 25, 2012

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.