Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (II)
Expert’s supplement report to comply with recent case law concerning sufficiency of proof to prove damages in patent cases fails for lack of qualitative evidence and comparable licenses.
Expert May Rely on Revenue-Sharing Agreement to Show Value, But Not Royalty
Court excludes portions of expert’s second, supplemental report for failure to explain technical and economic comparability of licenses used to calculate reasonable royalty damages in patent infringement case.
Google Experts Also Err and Try to Add New Approaches
Federal district court strikes portions of supplemental reports submitted by defendant’s rebuttal witnesses, in part because the patent expert’s failed to analyze predecessors to the patents in suit and the copyright expert applied new methodologies.
Oracle Expert Makes Final, Flawed Attempt to Apportion Damages
Federal district court strikes portions of plaintiff’s expert’s third and final damages report under Daubert, including the “upper bound” value of his apportionment analysis, his determination of market share based on consumer surveys, and his “independen ...
Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies (I)
Federal district court excludes hypothetical royalty for copyrighted software based on expert’s failure to rely on any comparable licenses or adequately explain their differences from his estimated 35% rate.
Federal Court Strikes Portions of Its Own Expert’s Report
Last year, when a federal district judge (William Alsup) couldn’t convince the parties to select (and pay for) an independent expert, he enlisted the court’s powers under Rule 706 FRE to appoint an economics professor to calculate damages.
Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp. (II)
Court excludes portions of expert’s second, supplemental report for failure to explain technical and economic comparability of licenses used to calculate reasonable royalty damages in patent infringement case.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (V)
Federal district court strikes portions of its own expert’s report on patent damages for failing to apportion damages among the patented and unpatented features of the in-suit IP.
Expert Proves ‘Too Human’ in Selection of Video Game Comparables
Court excludes damages expert under Daubert for subjective selection of comparables (video games) without reference to any “structured” or “principled” criteria, but that simply served to boost his lost profits calculations ...
On the Second Try, Oracle’s Expert Still Doesn’t Get It Right
Court sends plaintiff’s expert back for a third try at apportioning infringement damages between patented and unpatented features of technology system (Android), on a claim-by-claim basis.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (IV)
Federal district court strikes portions of supplemental reports submitted by defendant’s rebuttal witnesses, in part because the patent expert’s failed to analyze predecessors to the patents in suit and the copyright expert applied new methodologies.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (III)
Federal district court strikes portions of plaintiff’s expert’s third and final damages report under Daubert, including the "upper bound" value of his apportionment analysis, his determination of market share based on consumer surveys, and his "independen ...
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 ...
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 ...
Uniloc Expert Fails Two-Pronged Test for Comparable Licenses
Court excludes portions of expert’s damages analysis that fails to show economic comparability of patents-in-suit to prior licenses, but permits his calculations based on the entire market value rule upon adequate showing that the patented technology help ...
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.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (II)
Court sends plaintiff’s expert back for a third try at apportioning infringement damages between patented and unpatented features of technology system (Android), on a claim-by-claim basis.
Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc.
On July 8, 2011, Epic Games, Inc., ("Epic" or "defendant") filed a motion to exclude the reports and testimony of Terry Lloyd, an expert for Silicon Knights, Inc. ("SK" or "plaintiff"), and a motion to seal Epic's supporting memorandum and exhibits [D.E. 6 ...
Dataquill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp. (I)
Court excludes portions of expert’s damages analysis that fails to show economic comparability of patents-in-suit to prior licenses, but permits his calculations based on the entire market value rule upon adequate showing that the patented technology help ...
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (IV)
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 ...
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 ...
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.
Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP
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 ...
Court Adds Undeposited Check to Value of Business
Court finds that net asset value of healthcare software company includes un-deposited earnings, despite husband’s contention that the check was for future services.
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.
- 1
- 2 (current)
- 3
- 4
- 5