Patent Damages for ‘Lost Opportunity Value’ Pass Daubert
Court admits expert’s “lost opportunity value analysis” for calculating damages, finding that Georgia-Pacific reasonably royalty damages and lost profits are not exclusive remedies in patent infringement cases.
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.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. GI Dynamics, Inc.
Court denies summary judgment motion, finding sufficient damages evidence for misappropriation of trade secrets—even for early-stage technology—based on the actual pricing data by the competitor, which valued the risk at various stages of development.
Defendant Tries Every Pretrial Tactic to Avoid Trial on Patent Damages
District court finds that entire market value rule applies only when unpatented features are combined with patented invention, denying this and numerous other objections by defendant to plaintiff’s reasonable royalty calculations.
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.
Grow v. Grow
When the original valuation date preceded the 2008-2009 economic crisis, trial court erred by failing to consider its impact on the value of the business prior to trial.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (V)
Federal district court strikes portions of its own expert’s report on patent damages for failing to apportion damages among the patented and unpatented features of the in-suit IP.
Expert’s Event Study ‘Flouts’ Commonly Accepted Methodology
District court strike’s expert event study, purporting to support a “fraud on the market theory,” for “flouting” accepted methodology, including “cherry-picking” the event dates and failing to account for confounding factors.
On the Second Try, Oracle’s Expert Still Doesn’t Get It Right
Court sends plaintiff’s expert back for a third try at apportioning infringement damages between patented and unpatented features of technology system (Android), on a claim-by-claim basis.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (IV)
Federal district court strikes portions of supplemental reports submitted by defendant’s rebuttal witnesses, in part because the patent expert’s failed to analyze predecessors to the patents in suit and the copyright expert applied new methodologies.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (III)
Federal district court strikes portions of plaintiff’s expert’s third and final damages report under Daubert, including the "upper bound" value of his apportionment analysis, his determination of market share based on consumer surveys, and his "independen ...
Pulse Medical Instruments, Inc. v. Drug Impairment Detection Services, Inc.
Court admits expert’s “lost opportunity value analysis” for calculating damages, finding that Georgia-Pacific reasonably royalty damages and lost profits are not exclusive remedies in patent infringement cases.
Apportionment Is Key to Calculating Patent Damages
Federal district court reverses $70 million award based on expert’s failure to apportion damages between the patented and unpatented features of the accused product, finding that, at most, the evidence supported $26 million based on proper apportionment ...
Can Chain Stores Supply Lost Profits Proof for New Outlet?
Court vacates $4.2 million lost profits award, finding that plaintiff’s “sister stores” did not furnish comparable basis for damages projections.
Contract Damages: Accounting for Post-Breach Market Conditions
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 ...
Despite ‘Egregious’ Theft of Trade Secrets, Damages Hard to Prove
Despite employees’ ‘egregious’ theft of business secrets, federal court denies lost profits damages for breach of employment agreement due to speculative and overreaching evidence.
University of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
District court finds that entire market value rule applies only when unpatented features are combined with patented invention, denying this and numerous other objections by defendant to plaintiff’s reasonable royalty calculations.
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.
Careful Market Model Plus Clever Trial Tactic Secures $345 Million Damages
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.
Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse First Boston
District court strike’s expert event study, purporting to support a “fraud on the market theory,” for “flouting” accepted methodology, including “cherry-picking” the event dates and failing to account for confounding factors.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. (II)
Court sends plaintiff’s expert back for a third try at apportioning infringement damages between patented and unpatented features of technology system (Android), on a claim-by-claim basis.
Federal Court Resurrects 25% Rule of Thumb to Calculate Ongoing Royalty
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.
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (IV)
Federal district court reverses $70 million award based on expert’s failure to apportion damages between the patented and unpatented features of the accused product, finding that, at most, the evidence supported $26 million based on proper apportionment ...
Careful Benchmarking and Georgia-Pacific Analysis Sustain $95 Million Patent Award
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 ...