Expand the following panels for additional search options.

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.

A Script for Pharmacy Valuation

The U.S. healthcare industry is very large, complex, and changing rapidly. This highly regulated industry is also a significant user of valuation services, primarily to support transactions, contracting, and internal strategic planning purposes. The importance of consummating transactions within fair market value cannot be overstated, as the alternative can result in substantial financial consequences to the parties involved. As such, advisors need to know the operational and valuation issues associated with healthcare entities so they ...

Trial court’s IPO valuation in fair value proceeding holds up on appeal

A recent case shows just how difficult it is to value a startup. Here, there was an extra challenge because the subject was a pharmaceutical venture that required years of funding for the development of two drugs working toward FDA approval. The trial court needed to determine the fair value of the plaintiff’s interest prior to the company’s ultimate success.

Federal Circuit Weighs Use of EMVR in Pharmaceutical Case

Federal Circuit affirms award of 50% of gross margin, finding that, even though the entire market value rule is not per se inapplicable in the pharmaceutical context, it does not apply in this case because patents cover the entire infringing product.

AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.

Federal Circuit affirms award of 50% of gross margin, finding that, even though the entire market value rule is not per se inapplicable in the pharmaceutical context, it does not apply in this case because patents cover the entire infringing product.

Chancery’s Reversal on Damages Opinion Bodes Well for Plaintiff

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.

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.

10 results