Patent Experts Have Limited Latitude to Comply With New Damages Standards
Expert’s present value calculus for patented software fails to meet post-trial federal decisions on evidentiary standards for proving damages in patent cases, but the court grants leave to “repair” the report to conform to new standards.
‘Value of Use’ in Copyright Infringement Cases Is Still ‘Difficult’ and ‘Evolving’
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.
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.
Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP (I)
Expert’s present value calculus for patented software fails to meet post-trial federal decisions on evidentiary standards for proving damages in patent cases, but the court grants leave to “repair” the report to conform to new standards.
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 ...
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 ...
- 1
- 2 (current)
- 3
- 4
- 5