There is no absolute requirement to develop a reasonable royalty based on the Georgia-Pacific framework. That's the takeaway from a Daubert ruling in which the court denied the defendant's motion to preclude the testimony of the opposing damages expert, who determined a reasonable royalty based on market data instead of the customary Georgia-Pacific factors.
The issue arose in a patent infringement case in which the plaintiff alleged the defendants violated two of its patents covering a healthcare provider reimbursement system. The plaintiff's expert called the Georgia-Pacific factors "outmoded" and not suited to the case. Instead, he offered a market-based analysis.
The defendants' expert criticized the opposing expert's unusual approach, and the defendants argued the refusal to perform a Georgia-Pacific analysis disqualified the plaintiff's expert from offering opinions or conclusions regarding Georgia-Pacific.
The court rejected the defendants' Daubert challenge.
Find out more about the court's decision here.