Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (IV)

Apportionment Is Key to Calculating Patent Damages

Federal district court reverses $70 million award based on expert’s failure to apportion damages between the patented and unpatented features of the accused product, finding that, at most, the evidence supported $26 million based on proper apportionment ...

CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC

Contract Damages: Accounting for Post-Breach Market Conditions

Court of Appeals affirms $36.3 million lost profits for real estate development, finding that evidence of post-breach market deterioration was not relevant and permitting recovery for collateral damages, even though re-sale contracts did not exist for the ...

Blinds to Go (U.S.), Inc. v. Times Plaza Development, L.P.

Can Chain Stores Supply Lost Profits Proof for New Outlet?

Court vacates $4.2 million lost profits award, finding that plaintiff’s “sister stores” did not furnish comparable basis for damages projections.

Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP

Market Value Still Best Proof of Lost Business Value

Texas Court of Appeals affirms $26 million damages award for lost business value due to misappropriation of trade secrets, based on expert evidence that relied more on contemporaneous market transaction, which demonstrated what a willing investor paid for ...

Fidelity Warranty Services, Inc. v. Firstate Insurance Holdings, Inc.

It’s Critical to Apply Correct Measure of Lost Business Value

District court reverses $3.5 million award for lost business value due to expert’s use of incorrect measure of damages (income approach), and because owner’s attempt to cure by testifying as to market value was unfair surprise and speculative.

Douglas Dynamics v. Buyers Products Co.

Federal Court Resurrects 25% Rule of Thumb to Calculate Ongoing Royalty

Federal district court relies on 25% rule of thumb as starting point to calculate prospective reasonably royalty rate for patent infringement damages, despite (and without citation to) the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the rule in Uniloc v. Microsoft.

Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies (II)

Federal district court reverses $1.37 million jury award for copyright infringement, finding expert’s price erosion model failed to provide any reliable basis for damages, either in the form of lost profits or hypothetical license fee.

Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp

Despite ‘Egregious’ Theft of Trade Secrets, Damages Hard to Prove

Despite employees’ ‘egregious’ theft of business secrets, federal court denies lost profits damages for breach of employment agreement due to speculative and overreaching evidence.

Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. (I)

Careful Market Model Plus Clever Trial Tactic Secures $345 Million Damages

Court upholds $345 million lost profits/reasonable royalty award for patented software infringement based on careful market reconstruction and calculations by plaintiff's team of four experts.

SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (I)

Careful Benchmarking and Georgia-Pacific Analysis Sustain $95 Million Patent Award

Federal court found sufficient evidence to support $95 million lost profits and reasonable royalty award for patent infringement based on expert’s careful benchmarking and Georgia-Pacific analysis.

SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (II)

Careful Benchmarking and Georgia-Pacific Analysis Sustain $95 Million Patent Award

Federal court denies motion for new trial in patent infringement case, finding among other evidentiary and legal rulings that the plaintiffs did not improperly apply the entire market value rule.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (I)

Oracle Damages Expert Engages in Overreaching, But Google Is Wrong, Too

Federal district court precludes expert’s billion dollar damages calculations for patent infringement under the entire market value rule and other legal and evidentiary bases, and provides a clear ‘starting point’ for any reasonable royalty analysis.

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (III)

Expert Must Apportion Patent Damages Under Entire Market Value Rule

Federal district court precludes expert’s patent infringement damages under Uniloc standard for failing 1) to establish the patented software as the basis for consumer demand of Microsoft Outlook; or, 2) specifically apportioning damages between the paten ...

Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. City and County of Denver

Lost Profits Damages Cannot Contradict Contract Terms

Court accepts expert damages calculation for breach of contract based on DCF methodology, including growth rate and discount rate assumptions, but precludes terminal value calculation that violated nonassignment clause.

Rolls-Royce PLC v. United Technologies Corp.

Patent Damages Expert Crashes and Burns in Jet Engine Dispute

Federal court strikes substantial portions of lost profits, reasonably royalty evidence for “egregious overreaching” by patent infringement plaintiff and damages expert.

Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (II)

Expert’s ‘Judgment’ in Selecting Growth Rate Needs Proof of Guiding Principles

Court declines to reconsider Daubert ruling, finding the expert failed to support his selection of the growth rate in lost profits calculations with reliable, guiding principles.

Gary’s Implement, Inc. v. Bridgeport Tractor Parts

Expert Overcomes Three Objections Before Comps Are Ruled Admitted

Nebraska Supreme Court affirms admission of expert lost profits calculations that relied on comparable companies owned by defendant.

Victory Records, Inc. v. Virgin Records America, Inc.

Lessons From Daubert: Verify Client Projections, Comparables, and Causation

Court denies music industry expert under Daubert for failing to verify plaintiff’s internal sales projections; for using only a single comparable; and for failing to consider alternative causes for lost profits.

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (IV)

Federal court excludes defendant’s damages expert under Daubert for offering an opinion regarding available, non-infringing alternatives to the patents in suit without providing any facts supporting whether such alternatives in fact existed and whether th ...

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (III)

Federal law does not bar the admission of reasonable royalty agreements when the patentee seeks a lump sum payout.

Navigato v. SJ Restaurants, LLC

BV and MAI Appraiser Go Head-to-Head on Restaurant Discount Rate

Federal district court prefers discount rate for restaurant lost future rents based on industry data and research.

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (II)

Federal court excludes expert’s royalty rate under Daubert for relying on entire market value rule without credible economic foundation and for relying on non-comparable licenses as well as nonspecific, overly broad industry survey.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)

Federal Circuit Abolishes 25% Rule of Thumb in Patent Infringement Cases

Federal Circuit abolishes use of 25% rule of thumb in calculation of reasonable royalty rate for patent infringement cases.

Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise

Butler/Pinkerton Calculator Meets First Daubert Challenge in Federal Court

Federal Court confirms that the Butler-Pinkerton Calculator passes the Daubert standard.

Total Clean, LLC v. Cox Smith Matthews, Inc.

Lack of Due Diligence and Industry Experience Lead to Loss of $4 Million in Damages

Comprehensive research and analysis lend credibility to financial expert’s calculations for over $8 million lost profits and lost goodwill for restaurant.