Expert’s Apportionment Cannot Save Flawed Royalty Calculation

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 19 No. 3
Legal and Court Case Update
March 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. (922 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3577 Computer Peripheral Equipment, NEC
334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
intellectual property
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc. (I)
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8113
January 10, 2013
US
Federal Court
California
United States District Court
James Malackowski (plaintiffs); Elizabeth Dean (defendants)
Grewal

Summary

District court vacates patent damages because of expert’s use of the entire market value for reasonable royalty calculation, where the patented features did not drive consumer demand; apportionment of damages between the product’s patented and unpatented ...

See Also

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc. (I)

Full Text of Court Cases
January 10, 2013

District court vacates patent damages because of expert’s use of the entire market value for reasonable royalty calculation, where the patented features did not drive consumer demand; apportionment of damages between the product’s patented and unpatented ...

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 19 No. 3
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition