Expand the following panels for additional search options.

May Expert Use Valuation With Unknown Discounts for Royalty Analysis?

Court says no requirement exists that expert’s royalty analysis only consider transactions that are both technologically and economically comparable and finds Daubert allows for a reasonable royalty calculation based on a valuation of patent in suit embed ...

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (IV)

Based on prior ruling requiring that analysis of off-the-market lost profits consider potential design-arounds as of the date of first infringement rather than the notice, court rejects Samsung’s pretrial motion to preclude calculation of Apple’s expert.

Plaintiff’s Infringement Theory Constrains Apportionment

Court denies defendant’s Daubert motion finding plaintiff expert determined royalty base consistent with plaintiff’s infringement theory that defendant’s entire product infringed and the product was not functional without the patented technology.

Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, Inc.

Court excludes royalty analysis veering from “classic way” in that expert used number of infringing products, not revenue, as royalty base and dollar amount, not percentage of the revenue, as royalty rate.

Inexact Apportionment Invalidates Expert’s Royalty Calculation

Court excludes plaintiff expert testimony under Daubert, finding both the expert’s royalty base and rate determinations fatally flawed due to the expert’s inexact apportionment; in valuing damages, he failed to compensate only for the infringement caused ...

Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)

Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”

Expert’s ‘Dollar-for-Dollar’ Damages Theory Short of Factual Support

In a patent case, in a pretrial ruling, the court finds the plaintiff cannot claim direct harm for lost revenues its foreign subsidiary sustained because of the defendants’ infringement by relying on expert testimony that equated the value of the injury d ...

Apple Fails in Last-Ditch Effort to Offer Nonexpert Lost Profits Theory

District court grants Samsung’s emergency motion to preclude Apple from introducing a lost profits theory for several patents that runs counter to the Panduit-based damages model its own experts had developed, calling the new, non-expert alternative theor ...

Finding ‘Smallest Salable Unit’ Does Not End Royalty Base Analysis

District court finds expert’s royalty analysis is fatally defective as to the base and rate; expert improperly presumed that using smallest salable unit featuring the patented part ended rate analysis even though that feature was not closely tied to defen ...

Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (I)

Court says no requirement exists that expert’s royalty analysis only consider transactions that are both technologically and economically comparable and finds Daubert allows for a reasonable royalty calculation based on a valuation of patent in suit embed ...

Invocation of EMVR Subject to Higher Degree of Proof

In ruling on defendants’ post-trial motion, district court finds plaintiff’s expert improperly invoked the entire market value rule (EMVR) in calculating lost profits because customers did not decide to buy a system containing the patented device simply t ...

Glaring Unfamiliarity With Patent Law Disqualifies Expert

District court disqualifies proffered expert under all the Daubert factors, finding he lacked any understanding of patent cases and the dominant legal principles; he applied the discredited 25% rule of thumb and the entire market value rule, failed to pro ...

Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook

Court excludes plaintiff expert testimony under Daubert, finding both the expert’s royalty base and rate determinations fatally flawed due to the expert’s inexact apportionment; in valuing damages, he failed to compensate only for the infringement caused ...

‘Murky’ Infringement Theory Undercuts Royalty Claim

District court denies both parties’ motions for new trial, finding an award for “induced infringement” would be based on the very act of infringement that underlies the award for direct infringement and would be double dipping; also since the patented tec ...

Trademark Damages Not Contingent on Established Royalty

District court dismisses plaintiffs’ overarching claim that a reasonable royalty was not an allowable damage theory in a trademark case, as well as its narrower claim that a royalty was available only to the plaintiff that could point to an established ro ...

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (III)

District court grants Samsung’s emergency motion to preclude Apple from introducing a lost profits theory for several patents that runs counter to the Panduit-based damages model its own experts had developed, calling the new, non-expert alternative theor ...

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.

Court denies defendant’s Daubert motion finding plaintiff expert determined royalty base consistent with plaintiff’s infringement theory that defendant’s entire product infringed and the product was not functional without the patented technology.

Prior Deal’s Royalty Formula Captures Trade Secret’s Value

In trade secret case, appellate court affirms award for actual damages stemming from defendant gas & oil company’s misappropriation of plaintiff scientists’ study; expert reservoir engineer properly relied on the compensation formula of plaintiffs’ prior ...

The Innovation Act

201 - 225 of 1,611 results