BVLaw

Featured Case
Court Case Digest

The plaintiffs contended the trial court erred in granting two of the defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s damages. The appellate court affirmed

View Case Digest Download Case
Welcome to BVLaw
BVLaw is a central, fully searchable repository for the most important business valuation cases and case digests.Every day BVLaw legal experts track published decisions from the courts in all 50 U.S. states and federal jurisdictions - including the Delaware Court of Chancery and U.S. Tax Courts - guaranteeing that you (and your clients) stay current on the very latest valuation law.  Learn more and subscribe >>
Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Is the Subject of Cross-Examination but Not Exclusion

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

2 results