Summary
District court rejects defendants’ Daubert challenge finding plaintiff’s expert’s reference to total revenue was legitimate starting point of apportionment analysis and did not amount to use of Entire Market Value Rule.
See Also
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (I)
District court rejects defendants’ Daubert challenge finding plaintiff’s expert’s reference to total revenue was legitimate starting point of apportionment analysis and did not amount to use of Entire Market Value Rule.
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (II)
District court rejects plaintiff’s Daubert challenge finding defendants’ expert may “inaugurate” reasonable royalty analysis by referring to plaintiff’s existing licenses; however, licenses did not demonstrate an established royalty considering their lack ...
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (III)
District court denies defendants’ pretrial motion claiming expert failed to consider non-infringing alternatives in her apportionment analysis and affirms Daubert ruling in favor of plaintiff.