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.
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 ...
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, 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.