In a patent case regarding infant play yard arches, an Illinois district court this week excluded the royalty opinion of plaintiff’s damages expert because his royalty rate “might have been picked out of a hat.” In Kolcraft v. Chicco, plaintiff’s expert first estimated a baseline royalty of 7.7% of sales, then adjusted it upward to 8% based on the …LEARN MORE
A Nevada judge rejected a Daubert motion against a damages expert who based his royalty partly on a 50% profit split. Defendants called this a “rule of thumb” similar to the 25% Rule that the Federal Circuit rejected in Uniloc but the judge disagreed. …LEARN MORE
Although the “25% Rule” has been largely declared dead, here a district court determined a post-trial royalty rate using the 25% rule as a starting point as per Paice v. Toyota, a commonly cited case for setting the framework for post-trial royalties. …LEARN MORE
Two major holdings came out of this January 2011 decision: (1) the so-called 25% Rule is henceforth inadmissible, and (2) regarding the entire market value rule, plaintiff’s expert may not present to the jury the total sales …LEARN MORE