So begins a district court ruling in Good Technology v. MobileIron. The Court’s EMVR lesson in this July 10, 2015, order is as follows: when Dauberting an opposing damages expert for failing to fully apportion the patented product in his reasonable royalty opinion, you had better identify the unpatented features and show how …LEARN MORE
In this case where Microsoft’s Xbox and Kinect sensors are accused of infringing a facial recognition patent, the Virginia court excludes some opinions regarding the use of comparable agreements, the Entire Market Value Rule, and the basis for a lump-sum royalty. Plaintiff’s expert, Walter Bratic, opined that royalty damages should be a running …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
The Fractus v. Samsung case poses an interesting question: Where Fractus seeks a reasonable royalty on patented antennas, which it had actually sold in the past to Samsung, should the royalty base simply be that actual price, or can other techniques be used to account for the value of the antenna within the cell phone? …LEARN MORE
Judge Payne of E.D. Texas ruled to allow damages expert testimony despite defendants’ objections that the expert merely pointed to the technical expert’s position on apportioning the value of the invention. Although defendants claimed the apportionment was unverified and arbitrary, the court noted at least some basis in customer surveys and …LEARN MORE