Court Vacates $9 Million Baseline Royalty Rate Under Uniloc
Court grants new trial on damages, based on Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc abolishing the 25% Rule in calculating reasonable royalty for patent infringement.
Pulse Medical Instruments, Inc. v. Drug Impairment Detection Services, Inc.
Court admits expert’s “lost opportunity value analysis” for calculating damages, finding that Georgia-Pacific reasonably royalty damages and lost profits are not exclusive remedies in patent infringement cases.
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc. (II)
Court applies modified Georgia-Pacific analysis—including changed economic circumstances between the parties as well as changes in patent law—to determine post-verdict, ongoing reasonable royalty rate.
University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
District court finds that entire market value rule applies only when unpatented features are combined with patented invention, denying this and numerous other objections by defendant to plaintiff’s reasonable royalty calculations.
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.
Court grants new trial on damages, based on Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc abolishing the 25% Rule in calculating reasonable royalty for patent infringement.
Is a $22.5 Million Patent Award Reasonable When Plaintiff Sold for Only $4 Million?
Federal Circuit court affirms 5% royalty rate damages for infringement of patented medical device, based on expert evidence that showed a 20% rate would have been reasonable in light of economic and competitive circumstances.
Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp. (II)
Federal Circuit court affirms 5% royalty rate damages for infringement of patented medical device, based on expert evidence that showed a 20% rate would have been reasonable in light of economic and competitive circumstances.
AICPA and NACVA Standards Support Normalization Adjustments in Shareholder Buyout
Court requires normalization adjustment in statutory appraisal of company, pursuant to its finding that shareholder salaries were excessive and that professional BV standards require normalization adjustments in income approach.
Leading Expert Helps Court Tackle the Complexity and Uncertainty of IP Valuations
North Carolina state court approves models and methods for valuation of early-stage medical technology, ultimately adopting a royalty sharing arrangement to account for the uncertainties and events arising after the report.
Blackburn v. TKT and Associates, Inc.
Court requires normalization adjustment in statutory appraisal of company, pursuant to its finding that shareholder salaries were excessive and that professional BV standards require normalization adjustments in income approach.
Vernon v. Cuomo
North Carolina state court approves models and methods for valuation of early-stage medical technology, ultimately adopting a royalty sharing arrangement to account for the uncertainties and events arising after the report.
Court Needs to Reread Expert Opinions Before Rendering Damages
Court upholds $22.5 million patent infringement damages based on 5% reasonable royalty rate, despite defendant’s arguments regarding lack of reliable comparables and evidence that the company sold for only $4 million.
Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp. (I)
Court upholds $22.5 million patent infringement damages based on 5% reasonable royalty rate, despite defendant’s arguments regarding lack of reliable comparables and evidence that the company sold for only $4 million.
Failure to Object to Jury Award Loses Potential Millions in Royalties
Plaintiff keeps lost profits for patent infringement, but loses damages for “pull through” products and also millions in reasonable royalties, for failure to timely object to inconsistent jury verdict.
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.
Plaintiff keeps lost profits for patent infringement, but loses damages for “pull through” products and also millions in reasonable royalties, for failure to timely object to inconsistent jury verdict.
Comprehensive Valuation Evidence Is Key to Jury’s Reasonable Royalty Award
Amount of jury's "reasonable royalty" award questioned in an infringement case where the damages estimates differ by more than $140 million.
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc. (I)
Amount of jury's "reasonable royalty" award questioned in an infringement case where the damages estimates differ by more than $140 million.
Holes in Economic Damages Model Preclude Admission under FRE 702
Economic damages models fail for faulty assumptions based on unverified sales forecasts and growth expectations for distributor of surgical instruments.
Fisherman Surgical Instruments, LLC v. Tri-Anim Health Services, Inc.
Economic damages models fail for faulty assumptions based on unverified sales forecasts and growth expectations for distributor of surgical instruments.
Synergetics, Inc v Hurst
Synergetics, Inc., a company that designs, manufactures, and sells ophthalmic equipment used in eye surgeries, sued former employees Appellants Charles Richard Hurst, Jr. and Michael McGowan for (1) trade secret misappropriation, (2) breach of contract ...
CardioVention, Inc. v Medtronic, Inc.
This matter is before the Court on fifteen motions in limine. Trial is scheduled to begin on March 19, 2007. The Court heard oral argument on March 16, 2007. Also on that date, the Court issued its Order ruling on those motions and dismissing Count III ...
Baxter v American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co.
This case arises out of an insurance coverage dispute between Baxter International, Inc. (Baxter), and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (American). The dispute concerns whether payments American made to indemnify Baxter for damaged i ...
James Medical Equipment v Allen
In this appeal, James Medical Equipment (JME) seeks to reinstate a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court that was set aside by subsequent orders of the court. The original judgment had awarded damages to JME for breach of fiduciary duty and for cons ...
Valuation Date for Rejection Damages in Bankruptcy
American HomePatient Inc. (AHP) entered into a credit agreement with certain of its secured lenders that included a warrant agreement that called for AHP to issue two series of warrants, which, when exercised, would permit the warrant holders to purchase 3,265,315 shares (or 19.99%) of AHP common stock at an exercise price of $0.01 per share.
In re American Homepatient, Inc.
American HomePatient Inc. (AHP) entered into a credit agreement with certain of its secured lenders that included a warrant agreement that called for AHP to issue two series of warrants.