Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion against defendant’s expert Gregory E. Smith, in part because he relied upon personal knowledge of a license in the prepaid card industry, but this license was not produced for this case. Here, Mr. Smith testified that a license between Barry Fiala as licensor and two licensees reflects rates of 4.8 cents …LEARN MORE
Just as the Federal Circuit has been increasingly strict on requiring prior licensing arrangements to be comparable (Lucent, Uniloc, IP Innovation v. Red Hat), this district court precludes plaintiff’s expert (Lyons) from testifying about “his experience on the medical field as a whole.” …LEARN MORE
This is the first time we have seen a court disallow discussion of the profit margins of an accused product on the grounds that the patented feature was not shown to be the basis of customer demand for the product. …LEARN MORE
In this long-running patent infringement case regarding check imaging technology, where a jury had found lump-sum royalty damages of $27 million, the court now considers post-verdict royalties. …LEARN MORE
In this patent infringement case, Lucent sought reasonable royalties of $562 million for Microsoft’s use of a patent covering a date-picker feature of Outlook, based on an 8% royalty applied to Outlook sales. Microsoft countered that $6.5 million would be a reasonable royalty, and the jury awarded $358 million …LEARN MORE