Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

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.

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

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 ...

Lack of Control Premium Dooms a Fairness Opinion?

Court finds that, under Delaware law, proxy statement and fairness opinion need not disclose the same material financial information as that relied on in statutory appraisal actions.

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 ...

Court Vacates $1.3 Billion in Copyright Damages for Lack of ‘Real World’ Data

Federal district court reverses record-setting $1.3 billion in copyright damages based on the lack of proof of any comparable, real world licenses, permitting the plaintiff to opt for a remitter of $272 million based on the defendant’s profits from a spec ...

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.

Ehrlich v. Phase Forward, Inc.

Court finds that, under Delaware law, proxy statement and fairness opinion need not disclose the same material financial information as that relied on in statutory appraisal actions.

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 ...

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.

Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. (I)

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.

26 - 50 of 110 results