Recent Daubert rulings show courts’ different takes on the role of gatekeeper
A series of recent Daubert cases illustrate how different courts may interpret the role of “gatekeeper,” which they perform under Rule 702 and Daubert.
Pratt’s Stats/DealStats Market Analysis Survives Appeal by Owner Spouse
Appellate court finds no error in trial court’s adoption of market-based value determination by husband’s expert; expert acknowledged this was not the preferred method to value the small company, but company’s problematic financials and uncooperative attitude “compelled” use of this approach.
Hultz v. Kuhn
Appellate court finds no error in trial court’s adoption of market-based value determination by husband’s expert; expert acknowledged this was not the preferred method to value the small company, but company’s problematic financials and uncooperative attitude “compelled” use of this approach.
In Gatekeeper Role, Court Trains Attention on Expert Methodology, Not Conclusions
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (I) (Graphite)
In ESOP case pivoting on valuation, court denies parties’ Daubert challenges; court notes “gatekeeping” means focusing “on principles and methodology, not the conclusions that [the experts] generate”; parties’ objections are mostly quarrels with opposing expert’s conclusions, court finds.
‘Mixed-purpose’ valuation is discoverable, New York court rules
When it comes to document discovery, the “why and “when” matter greatly, as a recent New York ruling centering on a valuation report makes clear.
Failure to explain inputs gets expert excluded under Daubert
If more proof is necessary to show that courts across all legal fields dive deep into the details of valuation testimony, a recent damages case that arose in the context of a condemnation proceeding should do the trick.
Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.
Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.
Federal Circuit Majority Says ‘Premium’ License Calculation Includes Noninfringing Products
Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.
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.
More on Florida’s decision re: Daubert
As we reported last week, the Florida Supreme Court recently invalidated a 2013 legislative amendment that required courts to use the Daubert standard to assess the admissibility of expert testimony.
Florida Supreme Court negates legislature’s adoption of Daubert
In 2013, the Florida legislature amended the Florida code, section 90.702, dealing with expert testimony, to incorporate the Daubert standard in the state’s rules of evidence.
New Jersey closer to Daubert but still not a Daubert jurisdiction
A decision from the Supreme Court recently led New Jersey to adopt key Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, but the high court’s ruling also expresses a reluctance to fully embrace the Daubert standard.
New Jersey adopts key Daubert factors for expert admissibility determination
In an important ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently took a big step toward Daubert but failed to embrace it completely.
Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg.
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.
Underdeveloped Comparability Analysis Means Exclusion of Reasonable Royalty Opinion
Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.
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.
Expert’s Failure to Explain Basis for Compensation Analysis Renders Testimony Inadmissible
In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”
Rover Pipeline LLC v. 10.55 Acres
In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”
San Bernardino Cty. Trans. Auth. v. Byun
In eminent domain case, appeals court says trial court’s exclusion of defendants’ valuation expert was justified where expert simply adopted another expert’s valuation without testing the raw financial data and being able to substantiate the other expert’s assumptions and conclusions.
‘Wholesale’ Adoption of Another’s Valuation Makes Expert Testimony Worthless
In eminent domain case, appeals court says trial court’s exclusion of defendants’ valuation expert was justified where expert simply adopted another expert’s valuation without testing the raw financial data and being able to substantiate the other expert’s assumptions and conclusions.
Expert Qualified to Offer Unit Valuation of Telecom Property
In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”
Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue
In tax assessment case, court finds valuation expert qualified under Rule 702 despite lacking an appraiser’s license; court says rule specifically contemplates expert opinion on property valuation by nonappraisers if witness is qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”