Expert’s ‘Aggressive’ Damages Theory Necessitates New Trial

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 19 No. 4
Legal and Court Case Update
April 2013

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. (1,071 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
4813 Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone
334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing
intellectual property
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (II)
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29051
March 1, 2013
US
Federal Court
California
United States District Court
Terry Musika (plaintiff); Michael Wagner (defendant)
Koh

Summary

In patent case, federal court strikes $450 million from $1 billion award and orders a new damages trial, finding the plaintiff’s expert used an improper, “aggressive,” notice date regarding some patents and the jury awarded impermissible forms of compensa ...

See Also

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (II)

Full Text of Court Cases
March 1, 2013

In patent case, federal court strikes $450 million from $1 billion award and orders a new damages trial, finding the plaintiff’s expert used an improper, “aggressive,” notice date regarding some patents and the jury awarded impermissible forms of compensa ...

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 19 No. 4
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition