Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.

In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.

Court Says Daubert’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Role Favors Inclusion, Not Exclusion

In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.

Failure to explain inputs gets expert excluded under Daubert

If more proof is necessary to show that courts across all legal fields dive deep into the details of valuation testimony, a recent damages case that arose in the context of a condemnation proceeding should do the trick.

Federal Circuit Majority Says ‘Premium’ License Calculation Includes Noninfringing Products

Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.

Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.

Court majority says jury award was based on insufficient evidence because expert’s damage theory envisioned a premium freedom-to-operate license based on past sales of noninfringing products; dissent says expert’s hypothetical negotiation reflected real world concerns and supported award.

Expert’s inability to defend income analysis ‘is decidedly troubling,’ court says

Judges are alert to incongruities in valuations, as is clear from a recent condemnation case in which landowners hired three experts to calculate the compensation owed to them.

Daubert Ruling on How to Satisfy Apportionment When Using Benchmark Licenses

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.

Bio Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, Inc. (II)

Allowing that apportionment is “inherently imprecise,” court says damages expert’s supplemental report shows that the apportionment underlying three benchmark licenses aligns with the expert’s royalty rate in the hypothetical license; expert’s royalty opinion is admissible under Daubert.

More on Florida’s decision re: Daubert

As we reported last week, the Florida Supreme Court recently invalidated a 2013 legislative amendment that required courts to use the Daubert standard to assess the admissibility of expert testimony.

Florida Supreme Court negates legislature’s adoption of Daubert

In 2013, the Florida legislature amended the Florida code, section 90.702, dealing with expert testimony, to incorporate the Daubert standard in the state’s rules of evidence.

New Jersey closer to Daubert but still not a Daubert jurisdiction

A decision from the Supreme Court recently led New Jersey to adopt key Daubert factors for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, but the high court’s ruling also expresses a reluctance to fully embrace the Daubert standard.

New Jersey adopts key Daubert factors for expert admissibility determination

In an important ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently took a big step toward Daubert but failed to embrace it completely.

Underdeveloped Comparability Analysis Means Exclusion of Reasonable Royalty Opinion

Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.

Meridian Mfg. v. C&B Mfg.

Court admits expert opinion that reasonable royalty cannot exceed cost of developing noninfringing alternative because opinion is based on facts of the case; court excludes opposing expert’s royalty because he failed to assess comparability of selected licenses to patented technology.

Expert’s Failure to Explain Basis for Compensation Analysis Renders Testimony Inadmissible

In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”

Rover Pipeline LLC v. 10.55 Acres

In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”

Lack of Facts and Data Render Expert’s Fair Value Balance Sheet Not Helpful

Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.

Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair)

Bankruptcy Court excludes as unreliable and irrelevant expert’s solvency opinion and balance sheet; court says expert lacked the facts and data necessary to enact his chosen method and “failed in numerous ways” to reliably apply the facts and data in accordance with the selected method.

ESOP case alive (for now), but court limits damages testimony under Daubert

In a developing ESOP case, the government recently suffered a setback when the court agreed with the trustee that portions of the damages testimony the government’s expert proposed failed to hold up under the Daubert reliability prong.

DOL sues over ESOP; trustee launches Daubert attack

In a developing ESOP case, the court recently excluded a chunk of the government expert’s damages testimony and dismissed one of the counts for lack of damages evidence.

Trustee Succeeds in Curtailing DOL Expert Testimony Under Daubert

In ESOP dispute, court partially excludes DOL expert’s damages analysis under Daubert; court finds expert’s market comparable approach to support overpayment claim is unreliable as is expert’s methodology for calculating alleged loss in stock value to existing shareholders.

Acosta v. Vinoskey

In ESOP dispute, court partially excludes DOL expert’s damages analysis under Daubert; court finds expert’s market comparable approach to support overpayment claim is unreliable as is expert’s methodology for calculating alleged loss in stock value to existing shareholders.

Lawyers Provide Pointers to Testifying Experts

Coverage of the AICPA FVS conference in Las Vegas ...

Under Daubert, Damages Calculation Need Not Replicate Corporate Structure

Court admits expert calculation that determines one set of damages for two related plaintiff entities and that relies on data from nonparty parent entity; court finds calculation need not precisely track corporate structure to meet Daubert requirements.

Radiologix, Inc. v. Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, LLC

Court admits expert calculation that determines one set of damages for two related plaintiff entities and that relies on data from nonparty parent entity; court finds calculation need not precisely track corporate structure to meet Daubert requirements.

51 - 75 of 372 results