Pereira method used for marital interest in construction firm
In a Nevada divorce case, the court considered whether the valuation of the marital portion of a separate property business should be calculated under the Pereira or Van Camp approach.
Chalasani v. Bollempalli
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Appeals Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Medical Practice—He Fails to Provide Expert Testimony as to the Value
In this Arizona appeal of a divorce case, the husband physician did not engage a valuation expert and impeded the discovery of information relevant to the valuation to the wife’s valuation expert. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision of value and its apportionment of 50% of the husband’s value in the practice, noting the lack of an expert by the husband and the failure of the husband’s practice to cooperate with the wife’s expert.
Mamone v. Mamone
The Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court’s use of the Pereira method of determining the value of separate property included in the total value of the husband’s business. It was clear that the value increase in the business during the marriage was due in large part to the efforts of the husband. The “excess value” of the business over the separate property value was included in the community property. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling of the trial court that no community expenses incurred during the marriage were paid from the separate property of the husband and the husband was, therefore, not entitled to any reimbursement of those community expenses.
Nevada Appellate Court Affirms Value of Husband’s Business and His Separate Property Value in the Business
The Nevada appellate court affirmed the trial court’s use of the Pereira method of determining the value of separate property included in the total value of the husband’s business. It was clear that the value increase in the business during the marriage was due in large part to the efforts of the husband. The “excess value” of the business over the separate property value was included in the community property. The appellate court also affirmed the ruling of the trial court that no community expenses incurred during the marriage were paid from the separate property of the husband and the husband was, therefore, not entitled to any reimbursement of those community expenses.
Maginnis v. Maginnis
In this unpublished opinion, the Kentucky Appellate Court remanded the decision as to the value of the husband’s business for, among other things, the Family Court’s failure to consider an apportionment of goodwill between enterprise and personal goodwill. It also remanded for a reconsideration of the maintenance award to the wife since that award is based in part on the value of the business and the income of the husband.
Trial Court Fails to Consider Apportionment of Goodwill in a Marital Dissolution Case
In this unpublished opinion, the Kentucky Appellate Court remanded the decision as to the value of the husband’s business for, among other things, the Family Court’s failure to consider an apportionment of goodwill between enterprise and personal goodwill. It also remanded for a reconsideration of the maintenance award to the wife since that award is based in part on the value of the business and the income of the husband.
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.