Recovery of both lost profits and disgorgement not allowed in New York case
In a New York case, the issue of damages involved a Lego interpretation model of the Second Beit Hamikdash, or Second Holy Temple, and an alleged infringement of the copyright on this model (click here to see the model).
Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. & Mes Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
Patent Infringement Suit Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
In this patent infringement and validity matter, the defendants have moved for exclusion of the plaintiffs’ technical expert, who was proffered to testify as to infringement and invalidity of five patents-in-suit. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion, which included five assertions as to why the testimony should be excluded.
JBrick, LLC v. Chazak Kinder, Inc.
The defendants challenged the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert, and the plaintiff challenged the testimony of the defendants’ damages rebuttal expert. The case involved a Lego interpretation model of the Second Beit Hamikdash, or Second Holy Temple, and an alleged infringement of the copyright on this model. The court struck the plaintiff’s expert’s damages of a product related to the Temple Product but allowed testimony of damages on the Temple Product. The court also struck the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that the plaintiff should be awarded lost profits on the Temple Product plus a disgorgement of the defendants’ profits. Both may not be awarded. The court also struck portions of the defendants’ rebuttal testimony and report.
Daubert Challenges on Experts on Damages Partially Successful
The defendants challenged the testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert, and the plaintiff challenged the testimony of the defendants’ damages rebuttal expert. The case involved a Lego interpretation model of the Second Beit Hamikdash, or Second Holy Temple, and an alleged infringement of the copyright on this model. The court struck the plaintiff’s expert’s damages of a product related to the Temple Product but allowed testimony of damages on the Temple Product. The court also struck the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony that the plaintiff should be awarded lost profits on the Temple Product plus a disgorgement of the defendants’ profits. Both may not be awarded. The court also struck portions of the defendants’ rebuttal testimony and report.
Patent Infringement Damages: Lost Profits and Royalties
If a patent owner can prove another company or party has made, used or sold a product covered by a patent without its permission, the patent owner is entitled, under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, to receive “damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.” This program focuses ...
EllDan Corp. v. Steele (In re EllDan Corp.)
The remaining matter in this bankruptcy adversary proceeding was whether the covenants not to compete in the prepetition franchise agreements were enforceable. The debtor rejected the franchise agreements after the petition date of the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruled that the covenants were reasonable in duration and geographic scope under Minnesota law and public interest was not harmed. The court also found that the debtor breached the covenants the franchisor was contractually entitled to injunctive relief.
Despite Rejection of Franchise Agreements in Bankruptcy, Debtor Remained Obligated Not to Compete
The remaining matter in this bankruptcy adversary proceeding was whether the covenants not to compete in the prepetition franchise agreements were enforceable. The debtor rejected the franchise agreements after the petition date of the bankruptcy proceedings. The court ruled that the covenants were reasonable in duration and geographic scope under Minnesota law and public interest was not harmed. The court also found that the debtor breached the covenants the franchisor was contractually entitled to injunctive relief.
Damages experts point to areas of practice growth
Damages related to cannabis firms, cryptocurrency, and intellectual property are on the rise, according to the editors of the recently released 7th edition of BVR’s Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages.
New edition of BVR’s guide to economic damages is available
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, already the profession’s leading guide of its type, is now even more wide-ranging in its new 7th edition, which has just been released.
New case on damages in the metaverse
An artist is liable for trademark infringement after creating and selling a series of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that depict fur-covered purses resembling the iconic Hermès Birkin bag.
Lack of quantifiable damages dooms IP complaint
In a California case concerning intellectual property (IP), the defendant asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and asking for damages.
Commercial Success in Patent Litigation
To obtain a United States patent, the claimed invention may not be obvious in view of prior art. Whether a claimed invention is obvious often arises during the examination of a patent application by the United States Patent & Trademark Office. After a patent issues, obviousness may again arise as a defense to infringement by an accused infringer in litigation or as a basis for invalidity by a petitioner in post-grant proceedings, such as Inter-Partes ...
U.S. District Court Grants in Part and Denies in Part Motions of Dismissal by Company Against Blockchain Researcher
The defendant, CasperLabs LLC, in this trademark dispute in U.S. District Court (California) moved for dismissal of eight causes of action from the plaintiff Vlad Zamfir’s (Zamfir) second amended complaint. The actions dealt primarily with trademark infringement and alleged damages therefrom. The actions also included allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under California law. After analysis of each of the actions, the court granted dismissal of some of the actions and denied dismissal of some of the actions.
Zamfir v. CasperLabs, LLC
The defendant, CasperLabs LLC, in this trademark dispute in U.S. District Court (California) moved for dismissal of eight causes of action from the plaintiff Vlad Zamfir’s (Zamfir) second amended complaint. The actions dealt primarily with trademark infringement and alleged damages therefrom. The actions also included allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under California law. After analysis of each of the actions, the court granted dismissal of some of the actions and denied dismissal of some of the actions.
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.
Magistrate Judge Recommends That the Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Defendant’s Experts Be Denied and That the Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Experts Be Granted in Part and Denied in Part
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.