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 Pennsylvania district court ruled that the EMVR criteria need not be applied where the ancillary device is a part of the patented product and appears in the patent claims. The court considered arguments by defendant Varian that linear accelerators should not be included in the royalty base under the EMVR. …LEARN MORE
In the always-interesting case of Oracle v. Google regarding Google’s alleged use of Java technology in Android, which we at IPValueBlog have followed, Judge Alsup decided to give Oracle’s damages expert a third attempt at a damages opinion, but Oracle will have to pay Google’s costs of rebutting it. …LEARN MORE
In a ruling on post-trial motions in Broadcom v. Emulex, the Central District of California clarified its requirements on what it takes for a license agreement to be “comparable” and the importance of the “smallest saleable unit” and other licenses when determining the royalty base. …LEARN MORE
We at IP Value Blog have been following the damages arguments in this case, about which the court has expressed some firm opinions. In July, the court excluded the opinions by Oracle’s expert Dr. Cockburn for several reasons, including a failure to apportion the demand for Google’s Android …LEARN MORE