Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Damages Opinion Reveals ‘Serious Misconception’ of Role of Expert

Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...

Complex Facts Test Patent Experts’ Apportionment Skills

Court admits apportionment based on lines of infringing code and on value defendant places on product features in accused products but excludes apportionment using forward citation analysis for failure to show value of asserted patents in marketplace.

‘Blunderbuss of Objections’ Aims to Kill Loss of Goodwill Calculation

Defendant’s “blunderbuss of objections” to opposing expert’s valuation of loss of goodwill misses mark, 7th Circuit says; expert used a standard business valuation method and his reliance on company financials was justified under rules of evidence.

Expert Rebuttal Fails to Engage With Initial Valuation

Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”

No Place for Asset Appraisal in Trust Dispute, Court Says

In trust dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s exclusion of expert’s “asset appraisal and valuation,” finding business valuator’s approach for measuring damages was inconsistent with scope of the case, irrelevant, and not helpful to trier of fact.

Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods

Court excludes most of rebuttal opinion under Daubert, saying it is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” owing to expert’s “serious misconception of his role and misreading of the authorities he cites,” particularly with regard to causatio ...

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

Court admits apportionment based on lines of infringing code and on value defendant places on product features in accused products but excludes apportionment using forward citation analysis for failure to show value of asserted patents in marketplace.

Tilstra v. Boumatic LLC

Defendant’s “blunderbuss of objections” to opposing expert’s valuation of loss of goodwill misses mark, 7th Circuit says; expert used a standard business valuation method and his reliance on company financials was justified under rules of evidence.

FRE 702 Ruling Puts Expert in ‘Uncommon Position’

Court affirms magistrate judge’s decision to exclude expert’s ultimate conclusions but to admit his factual statements; under Rule 702, he had the specialized knowledge to provide background information helpful to court’s understanding of the evidence.

Court Endorses Before and After Method for Lost Profits

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc.

Court says market approach is “sound and reliable methodology” for calculating reasonable royalty and denies defendants’ Daubert motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert from testifying why he declined to use Georgia-Pacific factors in this case.

Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (II)

Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”

Clear-View Technologies, Inc. v. Rasnick (I)

Court excludes so-called rebuttal report where expert failed to review the initial expert report but instead contradicted the opposing party’s main contention; proponent’s attempt to append report to proper rebuttal valuation testimony is “gamesmanship.”

Can a Valuation Firm Serve as Expert Witness?

Chancery says defendant’s valuation expert cannot be corporate entity, i.e., its investment banker, because only a biological person may serve as an expert witness; but firm may substitute a managing director provided he first has adopted expert reports.

Court Draws Line Between Data Quality and Data Quantity

In personal injury case involving sole owner of LLC, court leans on 7th Circuit Manpower decision in deciding which parts of expert’s loss analysis to admit; it dismisses defendants’ objections concerned with data quality rather than data quantity.

Court Declares Lost Profits Analysis ‘Goes Too Far’

Court says nontraditional lost profits theory goes “too far” as it assumes sales occurred pursuant to a license the parties negotiated but never actually executed and assumes revenue derived not only from patents-in-suit, but also related unpatented softw ...

Cartwright v. Jackson Capital Partners, Ltd. P'ship

In trust dispute, appeals court affirms trial court’s exclusion of expert’s “asset appraisal and valuation,” finding business valuator’s approach for measuring damages was inconsistent with scope of the case, irrelevant, and not helpful to trier of fact.

Am. Aerial Servs. v. Terex United States

Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...

Advanced Drainage Sys. v. Quality Culvert, Inc.

In Daubert case, court accepts before and after method for lost profits and diminution of value calculation but excludes parts of expert testimony because they merely restated company assumptions and conclusions without undergoing testing from the expert.

Ross v. Rothstein

Court affirms magistrate judge’s decision to exclude expert’s ultimate conclusions but to admit his factual statements; under Rule 702, he had the specialized knowledge to provide background information helpful to court’s understanding of the evidence.

In re Dole Food Co. (Dole II)

Chancery says defendant’s valuation expert cannot be corporate entity, i.e., its investment banker, because only a biological person may serve as an expert witness; but firm may substitute a managing director provided he first has adopted expert reports.

76 - 100 of 128 results