‘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 ...
Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook
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 ...
Trademark Damages Not Contingent on Established Royalty
District court dismisses plaintiffs’ overarching claim that a reasonable royalty was not an allowable damage theory in a trademark case, as well as its narrower claim that a royalty was available only to the plaintiff that could point to an established ro ...
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.
Court denies defendant’s Daubert motion finding plaintiff expert determined royalty base consistent with plaintiff’s infringement theory that defendant’s entire product infringed and the product was not functional without the patented technology.
May Expert Offer Plaintiff’s Loss Calculation as His Own?
In Daubert challenge, court finds expert testimony that validates, without any independent analysis, potential loss projections created by plaintiff’s executives is irrelevant and unreliable; the expert failed to examine the underlying assumptions and any ...
Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (III)
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 ...
Court Upbraids Expert Who Discusses Subject Outside Area of Expertise
Under Daubert, federal court curtails trial testimony of defendant’s expert finding he lacked the appropriate qualifications; in a case centering on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), his financial economics expertise is not even “sufficiently proxim ...
Expert’s ‘Invocation’ of Income Approach Does Not Save Valuation
Court says federal law, that is Daubert, controls admissibility of expert testimony in federal court and rejects defendants’ claim that expert was unqualified under state law; but it finds the opinion inadmissible because it resulted from an approach that ...
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 ...