Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lost profits case awaiting Supreme Court decision

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review a patent infringement case on the scope of damages. The issue is whether a patent holder may obtain lost profits for actions that occurred outside the United States, where the patentee has proven a domestic act of infringement.

Federal Circuit Clarifies Different Ways to Effect Apportionment

Federal Circuit vacates damages, finding expert opinion was inadmissible because Georgia-Pacific discussion lacked analysis that tied G-P factors to facts of the case; court affirms apportionment requirement need not be satisfied through royalty base.

Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp. LLC

Federal Circuit vacates damages, finding expert opinion was inadmissible because Georgia-Pacific discussion lacked analysis that tied G-P factors to facts of the case; court affirms apportionment requirement need not be satisfied through royalty base.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (II)

Federal Circuit strikes down portion of damages, finding expert’s royalty base was unsupported because she merely apportioned to the “smallest identifiable technical component,” which itself was a multicomponent software engine that performed both noninfringing and infringing functions.

Court Doubles Down on Apportionment for Multifunctional Smallest Salable Unit

Federal Circuit strikes down portion of damages, finding expert’s royalty base was unsupported because she merely apportioned to the “smallest identifiable technical component,” which itself was a multicomponent software engine that performed both noninfringing and infringing functions.

Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded

Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.

Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded

Federal Circuit rejects challenge to lost profits award; patentee showed entitlement to lost profits from whole product by satisfying Panduit; although infringing product had multiple components, further apportionment in this case was not necessary.

Federal Circuit drills down into Panduit, apportionment, and lost profits

The Federal Circuit recently examined a paramount damages issue that comes up in patent cases: whether, in terms of calculating lost profits, the patent holder’s ability to meet the Panduit factors makes a separate apportionment analysis unnecessary.

Infringer’s Call for Apportionment of Lost Profits Goes Unheeded

Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc. (II)

Federal Circuit denies defendants’ request for rehearing en banc on issue of whether lost profits award was improper because calculation involving a multicomponent product required apportionment analysis in addition to satisfaction of Panduit factors.

1 - 25 of 199 results