Patent Experts Have Limited Latitude to Comply With New Damages Standards

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:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,309 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
Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (I)
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114847
August 15, 2012
US
Federal Court
Missouri
United States District Court
Stephen Weeks (plaintiff)
Jackson

Summary

Expert’s present value calculus for patented software fails to meet post-trial federal decisions on evidentiary standards for proving damages in patent cases, but the court grants leave to “repair” the report to conform to new standards.

See Also

Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (I)

Full Text of Court Cases
August 15, 2012

Expert’s present value calculus for patented software fails to meet post-trial federal decisions on evidentiary standards for proving damages in patent cases, but the court grants leave to “repair” the report to conform to new standards.

Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (II)

Full Text of Court Cases
September 26, 2012

Expert’s supplement report to comply with recent case law concerning sufficiency of proof to prove damages in patent cases fails for lack of qualitative evidence and comparable licenses.

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 19 No. 1
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition