A California judge granted most of HTC’s Daubert motion against plaintiff’s damages expert, Joseph Gemini, for relying upon non-comparable agreements in his patent infringement royalty opinion. Gemini used a revenue sharing agreement as an “additional consideration,” apparently to bolster his Georgia-Pacific royalty analysis. …LEARN MORE
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
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
Recall that the Federal Circuit remanded this case for a recalculation of a reasonable royalty, finding that the plaintiff’s expert and the lower court impermissibly relied upon broader re-branding and re-bundling licenses that furnished finished software products, source code, and other services. Upon remand, the court rejects revised opinions by both …LEARN MORE
Following the jury’s $70 million lump-sum royalty damages verdict from July, the district court judge slashes Lucent’s award to $26 million, finding several shortcomings in Lucent’s damages position that the jury had accepted. This case deals with Lucent’s Day patent, called the “date picker” patent …LEARN MORE