This California district court set some limits on the plaintiff’s damages expert testimony, ruling that plaintiff had not shown that the patented feature was the basis of demand for a pricier group of patented remote controls, and thus the expert could not use a higher royalty for those units. …LEARN MORE
A Washington district court excluded the expert report and testimony from a damages expert because he also opined on factual issues that are for the jury to determine. In this patent infringement matter, …LEARN MORE
In this order on post-trial JMOL motions, a California court declined to exclude expert testimony presented as a single reasonable royalty rate for a group of 3 patents. The Court then finds one patent invalid and then uses its own methodology to adjust …LEARN MORE
After a jury’s finding of patent infringement, the court rules on a number of pre-(damages)-trial motions, with 3 such rulings of interest. The court first finds that proffered testimony by defendant’s technical expert regarding possible “design arounds” as alternatives to the patented technology “is wholly speculative and, consequently, not helpful …LEARN MORE
In another case where plaintiff’s expert asserts that the reasonable royalty rate should be 50% of defendant’s profits, the defendants asked the court to exclude the opinion. In his report, Kristofer K. Swanson concludes that defendant would have been willing to pay up to 50% of its incremental profits as a royalty. …LEARN MORE