Failure to Specify Offset Value Does Not Preclude Expert’s Admissibility
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
Use of Reliable Method Does Not Assure Admissibility
Appeals court finds trial court had discretion under Daubert to exclude expert testimony on future lost profits where expert used the “first mover advantage” as part of his DCF analysis to quantify damages and ended up with an unreliable method.
A Time Limit on Use of Destruction of Business Method?
Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.
Expert’s Per-Unit Lost Profits Calculation Satisfies Daubert
Expert’s use of Panduit to show causation and reconstruct hypothetical market for lost profits analysis satisfies Daubert, court says; expert showed demand for patented product and provided method for calculating actual damages on per-unit basis.
Lane v. Lampkin (I)
Appeals court finds trial court did not err when it incorporated net book value calculation in its lost profits analysis in a case claiming breach of fiduciary duty and usurpation of business opportunity; dissent says damages calculation is “illogical.”
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (I)
Court finds business valuator is qualified under Daubert to proffer lost profits calculation relying on statistics methods and says expert’s loss period is not a mere “guess” because hindsight reduces years of uncertainty as to relevant market conditions.
Do Lost Profits Represent Diminished Value or Double Recovery?
In negligent misrepresentation suit arising out of plaintiff’s loss of business, court allows damages calculation that “identifies” lost profits, viewing lost profits as “a subset” of the total damages, not an additional amount.
PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Technologies, Inc.
In a major pharmaceutical case, on remand Delaware Chancery finds plaintiff proved it had a reasonable expectation of profits at the time of breach; court accepts plaintiff expert’s damages model, but orders adjustments, particularly to sales quantity.
Bobby Fisher, Inc. v. Cerveceria Costa Rica, S.A.
Court rejects plaintiff’s lost profits approach to quantify diminished value of business due to loss of beer brands because of “untenable suppositions”; defendant’s income-based calculation was “only rational” approach offered in this case, court says.
St. Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP
Appeals court validates expert’s use of defendant’s net profits as measure of damages in usurped business opportunity case; hypothesizing a facility that the plaintiff could have had and the profits it might made in competition “would not make sense.”
LightLab Imaging, Inc. v. Axsun Technologies, Inc.
Appeals court finds trial court had discretion under Daubert to exclude expert testimony on future lost profits where expert used the “first mover advantage” as part of his DCF analysis to quantify damages and ended up with an unreliable method.
Lost Value Opinion Using Untested Data Points Is No Go
Court excludes lost value opinion from expert who was versed in business valuation, but unfamiliar with scientific damages methodologies and did not test reliability of sources providing data points for damages calculations.
‘Stand-Alone’ Lost Profits Claim Sinks, as Does Expert Opinion
In lost licensing opportunity suit, court excludes damages opinion where expert failed to vet assumptions in plaintiff’s business plan; issue is to determine market value of loss not lost profits as such.
Abandoning ‘Classic Way’ to Royalty Analysis, Expert Gets Lost
Court excludes royalty analysis veering from “classic way” in that expert used number of infringing products, not revenue, as royalty base and dollar amount, not percentage of the revenue, as royalty rate.
Dominion Liquid Technologies, LLC v. GT Beverage Co., LLC
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
MacDermid Printing Solutions, Inc. v Cortron Corp.
Court finds damages expert’s use of destruction of business method is not improper despite a four-year gap between the alleged offending conduct and the company’s demise, and it does not render his calculation inadmissible under Daubert.
Roll-Rite, LLC v Shur-Co, LLC
Expert’s use of Panduit to show causation and reconstruct hypothetical market for lost profits analysis satisfies Daubert, court says; expert showed demand for patented product and provided method for calculating actual damages on per-unit basis.
Samsung’s About-Face on Off-the-Market Lost Profits Calculation
Based on prior ruling requiring that analysis of off-the-market lost profits consider potential design-arounds as of the date of first infringement rather than the notice, court rejects Samsung’s pretrial motion to preclude calculation of Apple’s expert.
Harrison Mfg., LLC v. JMG Mfg., Inc.
In negligent misrepresentation suit arising out of plaintiff’s loss of business, court allows damages calculation that “identifies” lost profits, viewing lost profits as “a subset” of the total damages, not an additional amount.
Antioch Co. Litig. Trust v. Morgan
Court excludes lost value opinion from expert who was versed in business valuation, but unfamiliar with scientific damages methodologies and did not test reliability of sources providing data points for damages calculations.