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 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 Comcast v. Sprint, the district court allowed Comcast’s patent damages expert to employ “forward citation analyses” in two aspects of his reasonable royalty opinions, finding that the methodology was sufficiently reliable. …LEARN MORE
In this patent infringement case about mobile handset digital watermarking technology, a Texas court rejected the royalty rate methodology of plaintiff’s expert because the expert failed to explain, mathematically, how his survey data led to his 10% factor to apportion the value of the handset …LEARN MORE
In Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool, the Federal Circuit explains in a bit more detail why an infringer’s profitability really, for sure, we-mean-it-this-time, definitely does not represent the ceiling on a reasonable royalty. …LEARN MORE