In Acantha v. DePuy, a patent case dealing with spinal implant orthopedic devices, a Wisconsin district court judge excluded what seems to be the bulk of the reasonable royalty opinions of Plaintiff’s damages expert. The court ruled that (1) the main basis for the expert’s proposed royalty rate improperly includes royalties paid to a licensee that is not a party …LEARN MORE
In Comcast v. Sprint, the district court allowed Comcast’s patent damages expert to employ “forward citation analyses” in two aspects of his reasonable royalty opinions, finding that the methodology was sufficiently reliable. …LEARN MORE
After precluding certain testimony by Plaintiff’s damages expert in January, the court now rules against the remainder of his damages opinion of $150 to $300 million “or more.” The court found that the expert’s reasonable royalty opinion was unreliable, being based upon a single litigation settlement that (a) occurred 5 years after the hypothetical negotiation, …LEARN MORE
In this Western District of Washington patent case, the court ruled that Plaintiff’s damages expert could not present a royalty rate calculated as 3x the rate found in a settlement, as an attempt to account for litigation uncertainty that could depress the royalty rate agreed upon in the settlement. The expert tried to argue …LEARN MORE