Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Keys to Using a Royalty Database

Follow along as we review the detailed processes ktMINE uses in order to mine and curate the public domain into the most robust transactions database on the market. We will discuss ktMINE's data sources, how the information is analyzed, and specific questions a practitioner may need to solve. Anyone who is interested in learning how to leverage a transactions database to execute effective valuations will benefit from attending.

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.

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 ...

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.

BVU News and Trends March 2021

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

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.

Revised resource for IP valuation insights and case law

New chapters and over 200 case digests—plus online access to the full text opinions—are available in BVR’s Intellectual Property Valuation Case Law Compendium, 4th edition.

Supreme Court rules on willfulness requirement to obtain infringer’s profits

In a trademark infringement case that turned on whether the plaintiff had to show willful infringement by the defendant to obtain the infringer’s profits, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently answered no.

More Ups and Downs for Patent Valuations in the UK and Beyond

Business valuers can expect further changes in the UK landscape for intellectual property (IP) creation and commercialization. Intangibles now represent almost 90% of the market value of the largest listed companies, so these changes may be the most significant factor in many current business valuations.

Examining the Correlation Between IP and Startup Valuations

Based on recent studies, this article discusses the role that intellectual property (IP) assets play in startup valuations and the IP strategy startups that recently went public implemented.

More ups and downs for patent valuations in the UK and beyond

Business valuers can expect further changes in the UK landscape for IP creation and commercialisation.

Supreme Court reviews damages issue in trademark infringement case

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a trademark infringement case that turns on whether the plaintiff, in order to obtain the infringer’s profits, has to show willful infringement by the defendant.

The IP in IPO: IP Valuation Lessons from Recent Public Exits

The year 2019 is shaping up to be a record year for IPOs: from iconic brands, such as Levi Strauss, to technology disruptors, such as Lyft and Pinterest, billions of dollars in valuations have been realized through public exits, providing hefty returns to investors and shareholders. When it comes to understanding what triggers the enormous valuations of some of these companies (commonly known as “unicorns”—a private startup with a valuation in excess of $1 billion ...

Calculating Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes: New Guidance

The 4th edition of the AICPA/CIMA Practice Aid for Calculating Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes is out, and, in the six years since the last edition, damages law and the intellectual property damages climate have changed in many areas. Join Drew Voth and Jeff Press to learn about the changes to the theories, techniques, and oft-cited case law addressed by intellectual property damages experts in the patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret areas. The AICPA ...

Supreme Court asked to review entire market value rule (EMVR) standard

A patent holder recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s 2018 decision on what a patentee must do to base damages on the entire market value rule (EMVR).

Supreme Court allows recovery for lost foreign profits

In a much-anticipated patent infringement ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of damages under certain circumstances.

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.

Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.

Federal Circuit Sharpens EMVR Test Applicable to Multicomponent Products

Federal Circuit clarifies EMVR applicability in calculating reasonable royalty related to a multicomponent, infringing product that contains other valuable nonpatented features; court explains how the patent holder must show that the patented feature was the sole driver of consumer demand.

Court shows itself flexible on apportioning for royalty calculation

It’s written in stone that experts developing a reasonable royalty for a multicomponent product must be careful to apportion damages to the product’s protected features. However, there is flexibility in how experts perform the apportionment, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed.

1 - 25 of 578 results