Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion against defendant’s expert Gregory E. Smith, in part because he relied upon personal knowledge of a license in the prepaid card industry, but this license was not produced for this case. Here, Mr. Smith testified that a license between Barry Fiala as licensor and two licensees reflects rates of 4.8 cents …LEARN MORE
I’ve been involved in cases where counsel tried to exclude an expert opinion for having too few opinions, thus acting as a human calculator, but this is the first time …LEARN MORE
This is the first time we have seen a court disallow discussion of the profit margins of an accused product on the grounds that the patented feature was not shown to be the basis of customer demand for the product. …LEARN MORE
Here, the district court precludes the proposed expert testimony of Dr. Russell Mangum, who intended to opine that the reasonable royalty base should consist of infringing Otis elevator installations because the patented feature …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