Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Court Finds Use of Industry Licensing Data Reasonable and Relevant to Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Opinion

Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.

J&M Industries, Inc. v. Raven Industries, Inc.

Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.

Plaintiff Fails Panduit Test Where Lost Profits Analysis Includes ‘Far More’ Than Value of Patents

In infringement case, court rejects plaintiff expert’s lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses, noting both rely on supply agreements covering more than the value of the patents; plaintiff fails Panduit test but is entitled to reasonable royalty based on opposing expert’s calculation.

Sunoco Partnership Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc.

In infringement case, court rejects plaintiff expert’s lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses, noting both rely on supply agreements covering more than the value of the patents; plaintiff fails Panduit test but is entitled to reasonable royalty based on opposing expert’s calculation.

Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature

In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”

Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.

In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”

Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Properly Captured Value Added by Plaintiff’s Invention

Court denies defendants’ post-trial challenge to jury award; court finds award was based on a theory of reasonable royalty, not lost profits, as defendants claim; plaintiff expert’s royalty rate properly captured value added by plaintiff’s patent and relationship between plaintiff and defendants.

Simo Holdings, Inc. v. H.K. uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.

Court denies defendants’ post-trial challenge to jury award; court finds award was based on a theory of reasonable royalty, not lost profits, as defendants claim; plaintiff expert’s royalty rate properly captured value added by plaintiff’s patent and relationship between plaintiff and defendants.

Supreme Court asked to review entire market value rule (EMVR) standard

A patent holder recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision on what a patentee must do to base damages on the entire market value rule (EMVR).

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.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.

Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.

Federal Circuit Sharpens EMVR Test Applicable to Multicomponent Products

Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.

Court shows itself flexible on apportioning for royalty calculation

It’s written in stone that experts developing a reasonable royalty for a multicomponent product must be careful to apportion damages to the product’s protected features. However, there is flexibility in how experts perform the apportionment, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed.

Federal Circuit Clarifies Different Ways to Effect Apportionment

Federal Circuit vacates damages, finding expert opinion was inadmissible because Georgia-Pacific discussion lacked analysis that tied G-P factors to facts of the case; court affirms apportionment requirement need not be satisfied through royalty base.

Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp. LLC

Federal Circuit vacates damages, finding expert opinion was inadmissible because Georgia-Pacific discussion lacked analysis that tied G-P factors to facts of the case; court affirms apportionment requirement need not be satisfied through royalty base.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (II)

Federal Circuit strikes down portion of damages, finding expert’s royalty base was unsupported because she merely apportioned to the “smallest identifiable technical component,” which itself was a multicomponent software engine that performed both noninfringing and infringing functions.

Court Doubles Down on Apportionment for Multifunctional Smallest Salable Unit

Federal Circuit strikes down portion of damages, finding expert’s royalty base was unsupported because she merely apportioned to the “smallest identifiable technical component,” which itself was a multicomponent software engine that performed both noninfringing and infringing functions.

Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded

Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.

Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded

Federal Circuit rejects challenge to lost profits award; patentee showed entitlement to lost profits from whole product by satisfying Panduit; although infringing product had multiple components, further apportionment in this case was not necessary.

Federal Circuit drills down into Panduit, apportionment, and lost profits

The Federal Circuit recently examined a paramount damages issue that comes up in patent cases: whether, in terms of calculating lost profits, the patent holder’s ability to meet the Panduit factors makes a separate apportionment analysis unnecessary.

Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded

Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. (II)

Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.

1 - 25 of 53 results