25% Rule Does Not ‘Irretrievably Damage’ Royalty Analysis
Federal Circuit finds use of discarded 25% rule of thumb does not “irretrievably damage” expert’s royalty analysis because he also used acceptable alternative method, substantially supporting jury’s award.
Test Case Considers Proper Framework for RAND Royalty Rates
Federal district court rules that the adaptable Daubert standard can accommodate two different frameworks for analyzing RAND royalty rates for standard-essential patents, a typical “bilateral” hypothetical negotiation between the parties and a fairly new ...
Did Patent Expert ‘Supercharge’ the 25% Rule of Thumb?
Damages expert did not use “supercharged” version of disclaimed 25% rule of thumb, but analyzed each of Georgia-Pacific factors to predict reasonable royalty rate, district court finds.
Damages Expert Can Assume But Not Opine as to Market Share
Federal court permits damages expert to assume the plaintiff’s 50% market share in calculating lost profits, based on information from a technical expert, but disallows him from offering an opinion that the plaintiff in fact held a 50% share, for lack of ...
Patent Experts Have Limited Latitude to Comply With New Damages Standards
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.
Brandeis University v. Keebler Co.
In Daubert decision, district court finds expert erroneously based royalty calculation on the defendants’ maximum profits at risk should they fail to secure a license, rather than the cost of developing a “best imperfect substitute.”