In this Daubert ruling, a Texas court rejects two of the four reasonable royalty methodologies put forth by Defendant’s damages expert.
NCR’s expert first attempted to arrive at a reasonable royalty for …LEARN MORE
In this Delaware patent infringement suit, the district court judge excluded plaintiff’s damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion that apportioned 50% of product value to the patents-in-suit because his apportionment, based solely on discussions with their technical expert, lacked a factual foundation. …LEARN MORE
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
In Exmark v. Briggs & Stratton, the Federal Circuit added to the pool of cases dealing with royalty apportionment, ruling that even though apportionment was required in the reasonable royalty determination, the apportionment could be done on the royalty rate, instead of the base, mainly because the patent claims refer to the broader product. …LEARN MORE
In Acantha v. DePuy, a patent case dealing with spinal implant orthopedic devices, a Wisconsin district court judge excluded what seems to be the bulk of the reasonable royalty opinions of Plaintiff’s damages expert. The court ruled that (1) the main basis for the expert’s proposed royalty rate improperly includes royalties paid to a licensee that is not a party …LEARN MORE