IP damages expert Bania testifies in Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial
One of BVR’s authors, Douglas Bania, testified that ex-wife Amber Heard’s allegations of abuse damaged Johnny Depp’s image.
Twitter’s brand value soared prior to Musk’s bid
The brand value of Twitter increased by 85% to US$5.7 billion this year, even before the takeover attempt by Elon Musk, according to an analysis by Brand Finance.
ABCs of Intangible Asset Valuation
Do you know the ABCs of intangible asset valuation? Join Nene Glenn Gianfala to dive into the Approaches used to value intangible assets. Next, tackle the Background, importance, and hot topics of intangible assets. Lastly, bring it all together with a Case study on how to determine the value of goodwill and other intangible assets in a business combination. Get solid with the fundamentals, so you can confidently tackle your next IP engagement.
Therapeutics MD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc.
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Magistrate Judge Recommends That the Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Defendant’s Experts Be Denied and That the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts Be Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Trademark values and useful lives for bikes
The average royalty rate for the trademarks of bikes is 3.8%, according to data from MARKABLES.
‘Key players’ in valuing IP per QYResearch
QYResearch has published a research report on the global market for valuation services for intangible assets.
Damages expert dodges exclusion bullet
In a patent infringement case in Tennessee, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the damages expert for the plaintiffs.
Apple is still the most valuable brand, per Brand Finance study
Apple has retained the No. 1 spot on the list of the world’s most valuable brands, according to the “Brand Finance Global 500 Report 2022.”
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.
Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)
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." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.
Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Goes to the Weight and Not the Admissibility
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." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.
Article examines brand values, ratios, and multiples
There has been a dramatic shift in the importance of brands in M&A transactions, with the value of customer relations overtaking the brand-value-to-enterprise-value ratio, reveals a new article.
Understanding Business Valuation - 6th Edition
February 2022 Hardcover, PDF
Gary Trugman
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
Benchmarking Identifiable Intangibles and Their Useful Lives in Business Combinations, Third Edition
August 2021 PDF, Softcover
BVR (editor)
Business Valuation Resources, LLC
Paper examines vanishing $10 billion of Sprint’s brand value
Prior to being acquired by T-Mobile in April 2020, Sprint had a brand with a value of $8 billion to $12 billion, according to all the major rankings of the most valuable brands.
Economic Damages From Design Patent Infringements
The authors discuss the challenges of determining lost profits for design patent infringement. This is an excerpt from The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, 6th edition.
Seven Steps to Managing an Intellectual Property Engagement
There is an inherent flow to managing an intellectual property valuation engagement. In BVR’s publication, Guide to Intellectual Property Valuation, 2nd edition, author Michael Pellegrino outlines the typical process and steps that a valuation professional may want to follow when performing an intellectual property (IP) valuation.
Monetary Remedies in Trademark Infringement Litigation
Remedies in the Lanham Act are used to punish wrongdoers in trademark infringement litigation, but courts applying that law have dealt differently with some key issues, especially monetary remedies. This article outlines some such problems and how the courts have dealt with them.
Data breaches threaten brand values, says study
A recent study from Infosys and Interbrand analyzes the maximum risk of brand value loss in case of data breaches.
Federal Circuit explains concept of ‘built-in’ apportionment
The Federal Circuit, in ruling on a patent infringement case involving two major pharmaceutical companies, recently clarified the apportionment requirement.
Prince Estate and IRS Embroiled in Fierce IP Valuation Dispute
Back in January, BVWire ran a news item on a recent article from the Star Tribune. The article states that the executor of the estate of Prince, the late world-famous rock star, and the Internal Revenue Service are currently locked in a fierce estate and gift tax dispute. The IRS argues the executor has seriously undervalued the estate, and the executors claim the IRS’ calculations “are riddled with errors.”
Fiat Chrysler brand portfolio valued using 1% royalty rate
The portfolio of Fiat Chrysler brands is worth EUR 10.4 billion based on a preliminary valuation using an 1% average royalty rate, according to a white paper from MARKABLES.
Revised resource for IP valuation insights and case law
New chapters and over 200 case digests—plus online access to the full text opinions—are available in BVR’s Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, 4th edition.