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.
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 ...
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.
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.
Expert’s FMV Analysis Aligns With Applicable Healthcare Law
In healthcare case centering on Anti-Kickback Statute, court finds government expert’s FMV analysis of physician services, which excludes value and volume of referrals, accords with standard applying to AKS cases and is admissible under Daubert.
Combined Expert Testimony May Provide Valid Damages Framework
In Daubert case, court finds government’s combined expert testimony concerning financial impact of negative publicity on sponsor (USPS) of Lance Armstrong and his cycling team provides “sufficiently non-speculative framework for determining damages.”
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp.
In Daubert case, court finds government’s combined expert testimony concerning financial impact of negative publicity on sponsor (USPS) of Lance Armstrong and his cycling team provides “sufficiently non-speculative framework for determining damages.”
Blind Reliance on Client Data and Wide-Ranging Values Gut New Venture Valuation
In a securities fraud action, appeals court upholds class certification; trial court did not err when it found direct evidence of price impact by way of event study was not necessary to show market efficiency where there was strong indirect evidence.
Lightbox Ventures, LLC v. 3 RD Home Ltd.
Court excludes lost profits calculation and valuations of new venture; experts’ unquestioning adoption of plaintiff’s data and assumptions, the large range of valuations proffered, and disclaimers accompanying valuations undermine opinions’ meaningfulness.
Expert’s Damages Opinion Specific Enough for Class Certification Stage
In a securities case, court applies Daubert analysis to plaintiff expert’s market efficiency opinion and event study; expert is qualified even without academic background, and his damages opinion is sufficiently specific to facts of the case and reliable.
SEC’s Daubert Challenge to Securities Valuation Testimony Fizzles
In an SEC case requiring valuation of restricted securities, court admits most of the testimony of parties’ experts; experts need not be specialists in given field and need not demonstrate familiarity with USPAP or SSVS to qualify under Daubert, court fin ...
Expert’s FMV Analysis Aligns With Applicable Healthcare Law
In healthcare case centering on Anti-Kickback Statute, court finds government expert’s FMV analysis of physician services, which excludes value and volume of referrals, accords with standard applying to AKS cases and is admissible under Daubert.
United States ex rel. Lutz v. Berkeley Heartlab, Inc.
In healthcare case centering on Anti-Kickback Statute, court finds government expert’s FMV analysis of physician services, which excludes value and volume of referrals, accords with standard applying to AKS cases and is admissible under Daubert.
Trial court leans on peer review service for Daubert determination
When, in a Mississippi accounting malpractice case, the trial court used an outside "technical advisor" to determine the admissibility of the parties’ proposed expert testimony, the Daubert hearing assumed a whole other dimension. It was no longer simply a battle between the opposing experts, but an occasion for outside experts to judge the work of the parties’ experts.
No ‘Circular Reasoning’ in Expert’s Lost Profits Calculation
Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.
Defendant’s Move to Exclude Damages Expert at Class Certification Stage Fails
Court performs Daubert inquiry at class certification stage, finding plaintiffs’ expert testimony is admissible; expert has shown it is possible to calculate damages by applying common, reliable formula to entire class, court says, certifying class.
Georgia-Pacific Analysis Satisfies Apportionment Requirement, Court Says
Court rejects Daubert challenge to lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses; court downplays importance of Panduit noninfringing-alternatives requirement and equates Georgia-Pacific analysis with apportionment between patented and unpatented features.