Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Covol Fuels No. 4 v. Pinnacle Mining Co.

Court rejects defendant’s relevance attack on plaintiff expert’s opinion, noting under Daubert testimony need not “fit” a particular cause of action but is relevant where it assesses damages based on harm to plaintiff caused by defendant’s misconduct.

Damages Opinion Reveals ‘Serious Misconception’ of Role of Expert

Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...

Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.

Federal Circuit upholds lost profits award based on adjusted market share analysis, finding expert accounted for huge price disparity between patentee’s product and infringer’s product and based market elasticity discount on sound economic principles.

7th Circuit Proposes Solution for Loss Causation Conundrum

7th Circuit agrees with defendants that plaintiff expert’s leakage loss-causation model failed to account for firm-specific, nonfraud factors that could have affected stock price movement and orders new trial applying court’s burden-shifting approach.

Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods

Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...

Failure to Test Causation Narrative Clouds Analysis of Lost Profits

Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...

Federal Circuit Resists Samsung’s ‘Quest for Apportionment’

Federal Circuit rejects Samsung’s call for apportioning damages related to design patent infringement, saying the proposed treatment would conflict with the express language of the applicable statute; court upholds most of $1 billion award to Apple.

Court Endorses Before and After Method for Lost Profits

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household International, Inc.

7th Circuit agrees with defendants that plaintiff expert’s leakage loss-causation model failed to account for firm-specific, nonfraud factors that could have affected stock price movement and orders new trial applying court’s burden-shifting approach.

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (V)

Federal Circuit rejects Samsung’s call for apportioning damages related to design patent infringement, saying the proposed treatment would conflict with the express language of the applicable statute; court upholds most of $1 billion award to Apple.

Am. Aerial Servs. v. Terex United States

Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...

Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

A Time Limit on Use of Destruction of Business Method?

Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.

MacDermid Printing Solutions, Inc. v Cortron Corp.

Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.

Expert’s ‘Dollar-for-Dollar’ Damages Theory Short of Factual Support

In a patent case, in a pretrial ruling, the court finds the plaintiff cannot claim direct harm for lost revenues its foreign subsidiary sustained because of the defendants’ infringement by relying on expert testimony that equated the value of the injury d ...

Apple Fails in Last-Ditch Effort to Offer Nonexpert Lost Profits Theory

District court grants Samsung’s emergency motion to preclude Apple from introducing a lost profits theory for several patents that runs counter to the Panduit-based damages model its own experts had developed, calling the new, non-expert alternative theor ...

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (III)

District court grants Samsung’s emergency motion to preclude Apple from introducing a lost profits theory for several patents that runs counter to the Panduit-based damages model its own experts had developed, calling the new, non-expert alternative theor ...

Court, Not Expert, Misses Mark on Loss Causation

Appellate court finds district court erred in excluding expert testimony on loss causation and damages in non-typical § 10(b) securities fraud case under Rule 702, because proof as to both elements under this scenario is less “complex”; the expert only ha ...

Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.

In a patent case, in a pretrial ruling, the court finds the plaintiff cannot claim direct harm for lost revenues its foreign subsidiary sustained because of the defendants’ infringement by relying on expert testimony that equated the value of the injury d ...

Pure Earth, Inc. v. Call

Appellate court finds district court erred in excluding expert testimony on loss causation and damages in non-typical § 10(b) securities fraud case under Rule 702, because proof as to both elements under this scenario is less “complex”; the expert only ha ...

Kenford Co. v. County of Erie

In dispute over lost profits for term of 20-year management agreement, high court sets forth three-part test plaintiff must satisfy, including showing causation, reasonable certainty, and damages within the contemplation of parties at the time of agreement; plaintiff here fails test.

51 - 74 of 74 results