Court Finds ‘Market Value Concept’ Requires Flexibility
Court says under Daubert a business valuator is qualified to value an investment company dealing in real estate since the company is not a piece of real estate but a business with diverse assets and finds real estate valuation is by nature “imprecise.”
Nash Bargaining Solution a ‘Non-Starter’ for Royalty Analysis
Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”
Samsung’s About-Face on Off-the-Market Lost Profits Calculation
Based on prior ruling requiring that analysis of off-the-market lost profits consider potential design-arounds as of the date of first infringement rather than the notice, court rejects Samsung’s pretrial motion to preclude calculation of Apple’s expert.
Myservice Force v. Am. Home Shield
In breach of contract suit, court strikes expert’s revenue forecasts, using Monte Carlo simulation, finding key assumption resulted from expert’s misreading of contract; court also strikes second expert’s valuation resting on inadmissible forecasts.
May Expert Use Valuation With Unknown Discounts for Royalty Analysis?
Court says no requirement exists that expert’s royalty analysis only consider transactions that are both technologically and economically comparable and finds Daubert allows for a reasonable royalty calculation based on a valuation of patent in suit embed ...
Expert Trips Over Fundamental Damage Concepts
Court strikes rebuttal testimony under Daubert, where expert admitted he lacked an understanding of the damages concepts central to the opposing expert’s calculation, failed to identify a specific method for his conclusions, and included his clients’ tria ...
Antioch Co. Litig. Trust v. Morgan
Court excludes lost value opinion from expert who was versed in business valuation, but unfamiliar with scientific damages methodologies and did not test reliability of sources providing data points for damages calculations.
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (IV)
Based on prior ruling requiring that analysis of off-the-market lost profits consider potential design-arounds as of the date of first infringement rather than the notice, court rejects Samsung’s pretrial motion to preclude calculation of Apple’s expert.
Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, Inc.
Court excludes royalty analysis veering from “classic way” in that expert used number of infringing products, not revenue, as royalty base and dollar amount, not percentage of the revenue, as royalty rate.
Dietz v. Jacobs
Court finds solvency analysis is not subject to AICPA’s valuation standards and admits expert’s claim that “magnitude of excess” reflected in adjusted balance sheet numbers means assets exceeded liabilities.
‘Undue’ Scrutiny of Expert’s Data Triggers Erroneous Exclusion
Seventh Circuit overturns district court’s decision to exclude plaintiff expert’s business loss calculation, finding the lower court “exercised its role as gatekeeper under Daubert with too much vigor” when it “unduly” scrutinized the quality of the exper ...
Inexact Apportionment Invalidates Expert’s Royalty Calculation
Court excludes plaintiff expert testimony under Daubert, finding both the expert’s royalty base and rate determinations fatally flawed due to the expert’s inexact apportionment; in valuing damages, he failed to compensate only for the infringement caused ...
Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. LSI Corp.
In lost licensing opportunity suit, court excludes damages opinion where expert failed to vet assumptions in plaintiff’s business plan; issue is to determine market value of loss not lost profits as such.
Marcus v. Quattrocchi
Court says under Daubert a business valuator is qualified to value an investment company dealing in real estate since the company is not a piece of real estate but a business with diverse assets and finds real estate valuation is by nature “imprecise.”
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (II)
Under Daubert, court excludes royalty analysis that claims parties would have agreed to equal profit share, finding it was based on the discredited Nash Bargaining Solution, a “non-starter in a world where damages must be tied to the facts of the case.”
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 ...
Finding ‘Smallest Salable Unit’ Does Not End Royalty Base Analysis
District court finds expert’s royalty analysis is fatally defective as to the base and rate; expert improperly presumed that using smallest salable unit featuring the patented part ended rate analysis even though that feature was not closely tied to defen ...
Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (I)
Court says no requirement exists that expert’s royalty analysis only consider transactions that are both technologically and economically comparable and finds Daubert allows for a reasonable royalty calculation based on a valuation of patent in suit embed ...
Glaring Unfamiliarity With Patent Law Disqualifies Expert
District court disqualifies proffered expert under all the Daubert factors, finding he lacked any understanding of patent cases and the dominant legal principles; he applied the discredited 25% rule of thumb and the entire market value rule, failed to pro ...
Daubert Tolerates Impeachable Aspects of Expert Testimony
Ninth Circuit affirms district court’s finding that “impeachable” aspects of an expert’s lost profits calculation do not render the opinion inadmissible under Daubert; further, the plaintiff, a profitable Alaska company “since statehood,” proved damages w ...
Orthoflex, Inc. v. Thermotek, Inc.
Court strikes rebuttal testimony under Daubert, where expert admitted he lacked an understanding of the damages concepts central to the opposing expert’s calculation, failed to identify a specific method for his conclusions, and included his clients’ tria ...