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
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
It’s not every day that a patent damages expert opines that Defendants should pay a 100% royalty. It sure didn’t work here. In this E.D. Wisconsin case of Nordock v. Systems, Plaintiff’s expert opined that “my opinion of a reasonable royalty on sales of dock levelers would be 100% of Nordock’s lost sales …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
In a Daubert ruling in XpertUniverse v. Cisco, the district court excluded opinions by Plaintiff’s expert that Cisco would agree to a lump sum royalty, since little or no basis was presented and his comparable licenses consisted of two licenses with running royalties of 3-5%. …LEARN MORE