Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (III)
District court denies defendants’ pretrial motion claiming expert failed to consider non-infringing alternatives in her apportionment analysis and affirms Daubert ruling in favor of plaintiff.
What It Takes to Succeed on a Patent Apportionment Analysis
Federal district court precludes defendant’s expert from apportioning damages for infringement of a design patent (as opposed to utility patent) as contrary to the statutory remedy, but denies most Daubert objections against the plaintiff’s expert.
Reasonable Royalty Cannot Assume a ‘Financial Catastrophe’
Court excludes expert’s reasonable royalty analysis because it assumed a “financially catastrophic” deal for the licensor, one that would have eliminated all profits and revenues.
Damages Expert May Only Assume Facts in Evidence
Court strikes expert’s “lost asset value” theory of damages for trademark infringement because it relied entirely on the plaintiff’s allegations that it lost all of its goodwill value due to the defendants’ actions, without adequate proof.
Patent Expert Asserts Flawed License and Legal Conclusions
Federal district court precludes defendant’s expert from apportioning damages for infringement of a design patent (as opposed to utility patent) as contrary to the statutory remedy, but denies most Daubert objections against the plaintiff’s expert.
Road Map for Reasonable Royalty in Oil and Gas Trade Secrets Case
Court denies lost profits damages for trade secret misappropriation in oil and gas case, but calculates $15.8 million reasonable royalty award based on prior “licenses” (farmout and joint exploration agreements) that were particular to the plaintiff and c ...