Expand the following panels for additional search options.

In Billion-Dollar IP Case, Expert’s Mention of Total Revenue Does Not Violate Uniloc

District court rejects defendants’ Daubert challenge finding plaintiff’s expert’s reference to total revenue was legitimate starting point of apportionment analysis and did not amount to use of Entire Market Value Rule.

What is a reasonable RAND royalty rate and range?

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (IV)

District court finds plaintiff’s expert qualified to testify to reasonable royalty calculation under Third Circuit’s liberal interpretation of Daubert despite lack of actual experience negotiating patent licenses; a hypothetical negotiation has no applica ...

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (III)

District court denies defendants’ pretrial motion claiming expert failed to consider non-infringing alternatives in her apportionment analysis and affirms Daubert ruling in favor of plaintiff.

RMD, LLC v. Nitto Americas, Inc.

Federal district court finds plaintiff’s expert’s Crystal Ball and Holt Winters methodology to project lost profits admissible under Daubert; method proved reasonable when subsequently tested with regression analysis tool.

Cost Method Passes First Daubert Hurdle in Lost Profits for Startup

Court admits expert’s calculations of lost profits under the cost method, finding the method not “optimal” but nevertheless reliable under the Daubert standard given the start-up nature of the business.

Rebuttal Expert May Be Redundant in Offering Only a Critique

Court admits the “before and after” as well as the “yardstick” model developed by the plaintiff’s lost profits expert, leaving questions regarding the underlying assumptions and data for cross-examination at trial, but excludes the defendant’s rebuttal wi ...

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group (II)

District court rejects plaintiff’s Daubert challenge finding defendants’ expert may “inaugurate” reasonable royalty analysis by referring to plaintiff’s existing licenses; however, licenses did not demonstrate an established royalty considering their lack ...

Icare-EMS, Inc. v. Rural Metro Corp.

Court admits expert’s calculations of lost profits under the cost method, finding the method not “optimal” but nevertheless reliable under the Daubert standard given the start-up nature of the business.

B-K Cypress Log Homes v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Court admits the “before and after” as well as the “yardstick” model developed by the plaintiff’s lost profits expert, leaving questions regarding the underlying assumptions and data for cross-examination at trial, but excludes the defendant’s rebuttal wi ...

Can You Prove Lost Profits With Only Five Months of Sales Data?

Court confirms admission of expert’s damages calculations, despite their reliance on only five months of pre-contract sales data.

BC Technical, Inc. v. Ensil International Corporation

Court confirms admission of expert’s damages calculations, despite their reliance on only five months of pre-contract sales data.

Expert Must Apportion Patent Damages Under Entire Market Value Rule

Federal district court precludes expert’s patent infringement damages under Uniloc standard for failing: (1) to establish the patented software as the basis for consumer demand of Microsoft Outlook; or (2) specifically apportioning damages between the paten ...

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (III)

Federal district court precludes expert’s patent infringement damages under Uniloc standard for failing 1) to establish the patented software as the basis for consumer demand of Microsoft Outlook; or, 2) specifically apportioning damages between the paten ...

Lessons From Daubert: Verify Client Projections, Comparables, and Causation

Court denies music industry expert under Daubert for failing to verify plaintiff’s internal sales projections; for using only a single comparable; and for failing to consider alternative causes for lost profits.

De Lage Landen Operational Services, LLC v. Third Pillar Systems

Court strikes expert evidence under Daubert in trade secrets case, because expert failed to pinpoint date on which misappropriation began—a “vital” requirement when applying the Georgia-Pacific framework.

Tax Court uses Daubert to take down appraisal expert

Butler/Pinkerton Calculator Meets First Daubert Challenge in Federal Court

Federal Court confirms that the Butler-Pinkerton Calculator passes the Daubert standard.

Valuing Director Guaranties in Bankruptcy: Using a Put Option Approach

Bankruptcy court confirms reorganization plan based in large part on “put option” approach to valuing corporate insider guaranties.

Victory Records, Inc. v. Virgin Records America, Inc.

Court denies music industry expert under Daubert for failing to verify plaintiff’s internal sales projections; for using only a single comparable; and for failing to consider alternative causes for lost profits.

New case digests added to BVLaw

First-Time Lost Profits Expert Challenged for Using Ibbotson Multiples

Court limits damages to breach of contract to those that can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and qualifies first-time lost profits plaintiff’s expert to testify re: same.

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. (IV)

Federal court excludes defendant’s damages expert under Daubert for offering an opinion regarding available, non-infringing alternatives to the patents in suit without providing any facts supporting whether such alternatives in fact existed and whether th ...

301 - 325 of 418 results