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 ...
Damages experts point to areas of practice growth
Damages related to cannabis firms, cryptocurrency, and intellectual property are on the rise, according to the editors of the recently released 7th edition of BVR’s Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages.
New edition of BVR’s guide to economic damages is available
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, already the profession’s leading guide of its type, is now even more wide-ranging in its new 7th edition, which has just been released.
BV News and Trends June 2022
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
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.
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 ...
Value of Coke’s secret formula could end up in Supreme Court
At last week’s New Jersey CPA Society’s Business Valuation and Litigation Services Conference, Barry Sziklay (Friedman LLP) gave an update on the huge battle between Coca-Cola and the IRS over transfer pricing that involves the trademark and secret formula for the soda giant’s iconic beverage.
Insights from the inaugural National Economic Damages Virtual Conference
Attorneys and financial experts joined forces for the first-ever National Economic Damages Virtual Conference to discuss intellectual property damages, COVID-19 damages, forensic evidence, and the ins and outs of appearing in court.
Today! Inaugural National Economic Damages Virtual Conference
Attorneys and financial experts join forces for the first-ever National Economic Damages Virtual Conference, a two-day event that starts today, May 26.
Leading damages guide spawns two-day virtual conference May 26-27
Compelling topics direct from the pages of BVR’s Guide to Economic Damages will come to life during the first National Economic Damages Virtual Conference on May 26-27.
National Economic Damages Virtual Conference debuts May 26-27
A mix of damages experts and attorneys will come together to present the very first virtual conference on the preparation and litigation of economic damages cases.
Federal Circuit explains concept of ‘built-in’ apportionment
The Federal Circuit, in ruling on a patent infringement case involving two major pharmaceutical companies, recently clarified the apportionment requirement.
BVU News and Trends February 2021
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
BVU News and Trends December 2020
A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.
New edition of landmark damages guide now available
The 6th edition of the Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages has just been released.
Sufficiently Comparable License Obviates Further Apportionment for Reasonable Royalty
Federal Circuit affirms plaintiff’s damages theory that relies on sufficiently comparable license to calculate reasonable royalty; court says there is an assumption that apportionment was built into negotiations for comparable license, obviating need for further apportionment in instant case.
Vectura v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
Federal Circuit affirms plaintiff’s damages theory that relies on sufficiently comparable license to calculate reasonable royalty; court says there is an assumption that apportionment was built into negotiations for comparable license, obviating need for further apportionment in instant case.
Alleged reveal of secret KFC recipe points up valuation question
Ever wonder what those secret 11 herbs and spices are in KFC’s original recipe fried chicken?
Court Finds Use of Industry Licensing Data Reasonable and Relevant to Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Opinion
Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.
J&M Industries, Inc. v. Raven Industries, Inc.
Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.
Plaintiff Fails Panduit Test Where Lost Profits Analysis Includes ‘Far More’ Than Value of Patents
In infringement case, court rejects plaintiff expert’s lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses, noting both rely on supply agreements covering more than the value of the patents; plaintiff fails Panduit test but is entitled to reasonable royalty based on opposing expert’s calculation.
Sunoco Partnership Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc.
In infringement case, court rejects plaintiff expert’s lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses, noting both rely on supply agreements covering more than the value of the patents; plaintiff fails Panduit test but is entitled to reasonable royalty based on opposing expert’s calculation.
Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”
Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”