Patent Damages
23Oct/19Off

DDE excludes damages approach due to lack of comparability

In TC Tech. LLC v. Sprint Corp., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00153-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 18, 2019), Judge Richard Andrews granted Sprint’s motion to exclude TC Tech’s damages expert, Mr. Brett Reed, from testifying as to a damages “approach” based on Sprint’s internal documentation.  In particular, Mr. Reed opined that “Sprint had internally considered [a 5% royalty rate to be] reasonable for telecommunications patents, including the VoIP patents, and determined how that figure would relate to Sprint’s LTE-related service revenue.”  Slip op. at 4.  Sprint contended that this opinion should be excluded because Mr. Reed had “failed to establish the required comparability between Sprint’s VoIP-related demands and the hypothetical negotiation.”  Id.  The court agreed. 

6Jan/16Off

MDFL allows "market approach" and damages expert to testify on technical comparability

The Middle District of Florida, in StoneEagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:13-cv-02240 (Judge Hernandez) (June 19, 2015), allowed the plaintiff’s damages expert (Weston Anson) to offer a theory based on the “market approach” and him to testify on the technical comparability of an allegedly comparable license agreement.  The court reasoned that the defendants could challenge the market approach and the expert’s qualifications on cross examination.