Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Calculating Infringement Damages (A BVR Workshop)

In 2019, the AICPA published the latest guide on calculating intellectual property (IP) infringement damages. Chaffe’s IP professionals will discuss a how-to of best practices for valuing IP for infringement purposes, including walking through a case study.

IP damages experts dodge exclusion in trademark case

In a trademark infringement case in Florida, the plaintiff’s expert (an economist) was to testify as to corrective advertising damages, but the defendant made a motion that she be excluded.

Therapeutics MD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc.

In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.

In Trademark Infringement Case, Parties Cross-Motions to Exclude Consumer Survey Experts

In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.

Damages expert dodges exclusion bullet

In a patent infringement case in Tennessee, the defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the damages expert for the plaintiffs.

Prince estate and IRS settle valuation dispute

The IRS and Comerica Bank and Trust, the administrator of the estate of rock star Prince, have agreed to settle their dispute and agree on an estate value of $156.4 million, according to settlement documents submitted in the case.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (II)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Court Denies Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Is the Subject of Cross-Examination but Not Exclusion

This was a patent infringement case related to technology “related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam.” Ivan T. Hoffmann was the plaintiffs’ damages expert. The defendants sought to exclude Hoffmann’s testimony on lost profits and his opinion of the reasonable royalty. Lost profits should be excluded because “he fails to tie consumer demand for products to the patented features of those products,” and he “does not establish … that, but for the alleged infringement, Plaintiffs would have made each and every sale made by Defendants.” Hoffman’s reasonable royalty analysis should be excluded because Hofmann’s royalty rate calculation of $20.00 represents a 141.8% increase to his $8.27 per unit “starting point,” and he provided no explanation for this substantial increase. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ quibbles with Hoffman’s opinion was the stuff of cross-examination but not exclusion. The defendants’ motion was denied.

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Goes to the Weight and Not the Admissibility

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

Patent Royalty Damages – What’s the Approach?

Royalty damages are one of the two primary types of patent infringement damages; which represent the majority of patent damages awarded and are a part of most patent damages cases. Experts John L Abramic and Richard F. Bero present a structured approach to addressing key royalty damages components. Drawing on the extensive patent damages and litigation experience of our presenters, the presentation covers royalty damages fundamentals, navigates patent damages case law, and provides insightful concepts ...

BV News and Trends October 2021

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Prince estate valuation featured on latest AICPA podcast

In the shadow of the recent court decision in the Michael Jackson estate valuation dispute, the estate of pop star Prince is currently locked in a fierce estate and gift tax dispute.

Economic Damages From Design Patent Infringements

The authors discuss the challenges of determining lost profits for design patent infringement. This is an excerpt from The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, 6th edition.

Insights from the inaugural National Economic Damages Virtual Conference

Attorneys and financial experts joined forces for the first-ever National Economic Damages Virtual Conference to discuss intellectual property damages, COVID-19 damages, forensic evidence, and the ins and outs of appearing in court.

Today! Inaugural National Economic Damages Virtual Conference

Attorneys and financial experts join forces for the first-ever National Economic Damages Virtual Conference, a two-day event that starts today, May 26.

Leading damages guide spawns two-day virtual conference May 26-27

Compelling topics direct from the pages of BVR’s Guide to Economic Damages will come to life during the first National Economic Damages Virtual Conference on May 26-27.

National Economic Damages Virtual Conference debuts May 26-27

A mix of damages experts and attorneys will come together to present the very first virtual conference on the preparation and litigation of economic damages cases.

BVU News and Trends March 2021

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Monetary Remedies in Trademark Infringement Litigation

Remedies in the Lanham Act are used to punish wrongdoers in trademark infringement litigation, but courts applying that law have dealt differently with some key issues, especially monetary remedies. This article outlines some such problems and how the courts have dealt with them.

Fingertip guides to valuation cases in new BVR compendium guides

BVR’s valuation and case law compendium guides contain a very helpful feature: a handy summary table of hundreds of cases (by jurisdiction) that gives you the case name, date, specific court, and the main valuation issue in the case.

Patent Infringement Case Provides Judge With a Plethora of Daubert Challenges to Rule on

In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.

Shire ViroPharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC

In this patent infringement case, the court ruled on a plethora of Daubert/Rule 702 challenges. The opinion provides an exhaustive list of Daubert-related issues that the court ruled on and provides a good tutorial on the real purposes of Daubert.

BVU News and Trends February 2021

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Prince estate and IRS embroiled in fierce valuation dispute

A recent article in the Star Tribune says the executor of the estate of Prince, the late world-famous rock star, and the Internal Revenue Service are currently locked in a fierce estate and gift tax dispute.

1 - 25 of 287 results