Source: http://patent-damages.com/category/expert-witnesses-and-admissibility-of-testimony-supporting-damages/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:41:56+00:00

Document:
Bratic based his opinion on a Georgia Pacific hypothetical negotiation and concluded that Cisco would have paid a $32.5M lump sum for a license to the two patents-in-suit. He opined that Cisco would have paid 50% of $65M he stated was invested to develop a computer system that could stand as a proxy for the plaintiff’s technology. He used two license agreements he considered comparable and found they established a running royalty range of 3-5%.
On April 2, 2013, the NDCA issued an opinion in Accessories Marketing, Inc. v. TEK Corporation, Case No. C 11-4773 PSG (Doc. No. 183), addressing TEK’s MIL concerning damages. One of the issues concerned the impact of lost sales by a related company on the hypothetical negotiation.
On March 1, 2013, the EDTX issued an opinion in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 6:10-cv-00417-LED (Doc. No. 745), granting in part and denying in part Cisco’s motion to exclude certain opinions by VirnetX’s damages expert, Roy Weinstein. The court addressed two issues: (1) whether Mr. Weinstein had accounted for the smallest salable patent practicing unit (SSU) in determining the royalty base the accused products; and (2) the acceptability of Mr. Weinstein’s reliance on the Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS) profit splitting model. The court ruled for Cisco on issue #1 and for VirnetX on issue #2.
On March 26, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. 11-1218, addressing damages issues and worldwide sales. The case is linked here.
The District of Delaware in AVM Tech., LLC v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 10-610-RGA (D. Del. January 4, 2013), ruled on Intel’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of AVM’s damages expert, Larry Evans. Judge Andrews considered two issues: 1) the intersection of the entire market value rule (EMVR) and smallest salable unit, and 2) comparability of portfolio license agreements.
The Northern District of Texas in Axcess Int’l, Inc. v. Savi Tech., Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-1033-F (N.D. Tex. January 25, 2013), ruled on defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, Dr. Scott D. Hakala, from testifying on damages. The court held a pretrial hearing and afterward considered issues related to Dr. Hakala’s expert report. Axcess submitted a supplemental document in an attempt address the court’s concern that Dr. Hakala had inadequately apportioned the royalty base to account for the smallest salable patent practicing unit and failed to give a reliable assessment of the royalty rate. The court continued the trial to permit Axcess an opportunity to address the court’s concerns and in the opinion outlined the additional requirements for Dr. Hakala’s new expert report.
There is an obvious and important difference between considering historical pricing and market information to determine the amount the patentee could have charged later, to account for damages caused by infringement occurring during the damages period (which is proper), and calculating damages for defendant’s infringing conduct that occurred before the patentee complied with the marking statute (which is improper). Here Morpho seeks to do the latter, which is expressly prohibited by the marking statute.
Judge Fischer in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in Carnegie Mellon University v Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. (M.D. Pa. November 29, 2012), denied an “emergency” motion to strike CMU’s damages theory on the eve of trial. The Court denied the motion on multiple grounds, both procedurally (finding that it was in essence a motion for reconsideration of a previous order), and substantively (applying the same logic from the previous summary judgment motion that was denied).
The SDCA in Gen-Probe Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., Case No. 09-CV-2319 BEN NLS and 10-CV-0602 BEN NLS (S.D. Cal. November 26, 2012), ruled on Daubert motions by plaintiff Gen-Probe and defendant Becton Dickinson (“BD”) regarding damages issues. The court denied both motions.
The MDFL in Harris Corp. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Case No. 6:11-CV-618-Orl-36KRS (M.D. Fla. January 16, 2013), ruled on plaintiff Harris’s motion to strike the expert report and exclude testimony (i.e., a Daubert motion) of defendant’s damages expert Richard Ostiller. Harris made several arguments challenging the reliability of Ostiller’s opinions, the most interesting of which involved Ostiller’s reliance on two license agreements that he concluded were comparable and the methodology he used to locate those licenses (which did not involve either of the parties to the lawsuit). The court denied the motion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.