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.
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 ...
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 ...
Paper investigates patent valuation methods
A new paper investigates the underlying knowledge structure and the evolution of patent valuation methods under two main topics: quantitative and qualitative.
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 ...