Careful Benchmarking and Georgia-Pacific Analysis Sustain $95 Million Patent Award
Federal court denies motion for new trial in patent infringement case, finding among other evidentiary and legal rulings that the plaintiffs did not improperly apply the entire market value rule.
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 ...
Oracle Damages Expert Engages in Overreaching, But Google Is Wrong, Too
Federal district court precludes expert’s billion dollar damages calculations for patent infringement under the entire market value rule and other legal and evidentiary bases, and provides a clear ‘starting point’ for any reasonable royalty analysis.
CR-RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC
Court of Appeals affirms $36.3 million lost profits for real estate development, finding that evidence of post-breach market deterioration was not relevant and permitting recovery for collateral damages, even though re-sale contracts did not exist for the ...
Blinds to Go (U.S.), Inc. v. Times Plaza Development, L.P.
Court vacates $4.2 million lost profits award, finding that plaintiff’s “sister stores” did not furnish comparable basis for damages projections.
Lost Profits Damages Cannot Contradict Contract Terms
Court accepts expert damages calculation for breach of contract based on DCF methodology, including growth rate and discount rate assumptions, but precludes terminal value calculation that violated nonassignment clause.
Douglas Dynamics v. Buyers Products Co.
Federal district court relies on 25% rule of thumb as starting point to calculate prospective reasonably royalty rate for patent infringement damages, despite (and without citation to) the Federal Circuit’s rejection of the rule in Uniloc v. Microsoft.
Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp
Despite employees’ ‘egregious’ theft of business secrets, federal court denies lost profits damages for breach of employment agreement due to speculative and overreaching evidence.
Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. (I)
Court upholds $345 million lost profits/reasonable royalty award for patented software infringement based on careful market reconstruction and calculations by plaintiff's team of four experts.
Oracle USA, Inc. v. SAP AG
Federal district court reverses record-setting $1.3 billion in copyright damages based on the lack of proof of any comparable, real world licenses, permitting the plaintiff to opt for a remitter of $272 million based on the defendant’s profits from a spec ...
Expert’s ‘Judgment’ in Selecting Growth Rate Needs Proof of Guiding Principles
Court declines to reconsider Daubert ruling, finding the expert failed to support his selection of the growth rate in lost profits calculations with reliable, guiding principles.
Patent Damages Expert Crashes and Burns in Jet Engine Dispute
Federal court strikes substantial portions of lost profits, reasonably royalty evidence for “egregious overreaching” by patent infringement plaintiff and damages expert.
SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (I)
Federal court found sufficient evidence to support $95 million lost profits and reasonable royalty award for patent infringement based on expert’s careful benchmarking and Georgia-Pacific analysis.
SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. (II)
Federal court denies motion for new trial in patent infringement case, finding among other evidentiary and legal rulings that the plaintiffs did not improperly apply the entire market value rule.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (I)
Federal district court precludes expert’s billion dollar damages calculations for patent infringement under the entire market value rule and other legal and evidentiary bases, and provides a clear ‘starting point’ for any reasonable royalty analysis.
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 ...
Mondis Technology, Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
Federal district court permits patent damages expert to base running royalty calculations on market value of accused products, when “economic justification” supported application of entire market value rule.
Pandora Jewelers 1995, Inc. v. Pandora Jewelry, Inc.
Federal district court admits expert’s trademark infringement damages under Daubert, finding the he could assume liability and use defendant’s profits without apportionment to the alleged infringement, but denied his calculations based on corrective adver ...
Allstate Sweeping, LLC v. City and County of Denver
Court accepts expert damages calculation for breach of contract based on DCF methodology, including growth rate and discount rate assumptions, but precludes terminal value calculation that violated nonassignment clause.
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.
Rolls-Royce PLC v. United Technologies Corp.
Federal court strikes substantial portions of lost profits, reasonably royalty evidence for “egregious overreaching” by patent infringement plaintiff and damages expert.
Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group
Federal court precludes defendants’ damages expert from testifying to causes of music industry declines, but permits his calculation of reasonable royalty based on hypothetical negotiation to server as evidence of “expenses saved” by defendants in their i ...
Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (II)
Court declines to reconsider Daubert ruling, finding the expert failed to support his selection of the growth rate in lost profits calculations with reliable, guiding principles.