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
This district court wrestles with a conflicting area of patent damages that we at VLF have previously identified: although the Fed. Circuit wants patent royalties to be based on the “smallest saleable unit,” it later rejected the use of MS Outlook (presumably the smallest saleable unit) as a royalty base.
In this case, Plaintiff’s damages expert, Larry Evans, calculated damages based on Intel processors – the smallest saleable unit – …LEARN MORE
In a Daubert ruling, a Washington district court judged allows Motorola’s expert to testify that the reasonable royalty should apply to the complete product, despite failing to meet the entire market value rule. In this patent infringement case related to Microsoft’s Xbox 360, …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