Case ID: f-supp-3d_199/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Saris, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., Defendants. Trustees of Boston University, Plaintiff, v. Epistar Corporation, et al., Defendants.
    Consolidated Civil Action No. 12-11935-PBS
    Civil Action No. 12-12326-PBS
    United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.
    Signed August 9, 2016
    
      Christopher L. Evans, Russell J. Depal-ma, Michael W. Shore, Alfonso Garcia Chan, Andrew M. Howard, Shore Chan Bragalone Depumpo LLP, Dallas, TX, Erik Paul Belt, Kelly A. Gabos, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
    Christopher S. Schultz, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Susan G. L. Glovsky, Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds, Boston, MA, E. Robert Yoches, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, Eric Benisek, Stephen C. Steinberg, Jeffrey T. Lindgren, Richard C. Vasquez, Robert McArthur, Vasquez Beni-sek <& Lindgren LLP, Lafayette, CA, Jeffrey D. Smyth, Ming-Tao Yang, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Bijal V. Vakil, Jeannine Yoo Sano, Pan Chih Lee, White & Case LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Kenneth M. Frankel, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, Lawrence P. Cogswell, III, Hamilton Brook Smith & Reynolds, P.C., Concord, MA, for Defendants.
   ORDER

Saris, Chief Judge.

On July 22, 2016, this Court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and/or a new trial, except with respect to the issue of damages. See Trs. of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., No. 12-11935, 2016 WL 3962826, at *1 (D.Mass. July 22, 2016). Trustees of Boston University (BU) now moves for reconsideration of this Court’s order granting remittitur or a new trial on damages. The Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 1776) is DENIED.

I agree with the plaintiff that a $9,300,000 running royalty from Epistar and a $4,000,000 running royalty from Ev-erlight would have been in the range of acceptable damages awards if the jury had chosen the running royalty format for a reasonable royalty under the hypothetical negotiation approach, and specified a royalty base and rate on the verdict form. However, at the invitation of counsel to avoid the math, the jury elected to award damages based on a lump-sum calculation. While Plaintiffs counsel now attempts to explain how a lump-sum calculation could have been made based on the record (including the Osram license agreement), its damages expert did not provide any testimony to the jury on how to determine a lump-sum award under the Georgia-Pacific framework. See Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.1970). Given that the plaintiff rejected remittitur, damages must be retried.