Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.

Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (II)

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.

Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

Court finds plaintiff expert’s lost profits calculation regarding two-supplier market is inadmissible and rejects reasonable royalty to the extent expert failed to explain how apportionment in benchmark licenses relates to expert’s hypothetical license.

Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (I)

Court finds plaintiff expert’s lost profits calculation regarding two-supplier market is inadmissible and rejects reasonable royalty to the extent expert failed to explain how apportionment in benchmark licenses relates to expert’s hypothetical license.

Court Validates Use of IPO Valuation in Fair Value Proceeding

In shareholder suit involving pharmaceutical startup with uncertain prospects, appeals court upholds trial court’s rejection of expert testimony based on “traditional” valuation methods in favor of noncontemporary IPO valuation to determine fair value.

Court Validates Use of IPO Valuation in Fair Value Proceeding

In shareholder suit involving pharmaceutical startup with uncertain prospects, appeals court upholds trial court’s rejection of expert testimony based on “traditional” valuation methods in favor of noncontemporary IPO valuation to determine fair value.

Kottayil v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.

In shareholder suit involving pharmaceutical startup with uncertain prospects, appeals court upholds trial court’s rejection of expert testimony based on “traditional” valuation methods in favor of noncontemporary IPO valuation to determine fair value.

‘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 ...

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.

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 ...

Kairos Scientific Inc. v. Fish & Richardson, P.C.

The California Court of Appeal, 1st District, reversed a $30 million damages award in this attorney malpractice action.

10 results