8Oct/14Off
EDTX rejects arguments that expert should have included sunk costs and did not apportion
Posted by Chris Marchese
The Eastern District of Texas, in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Civil Action No. 1-12-CV-580 (Judge Ron Clark) (Aug. 22, 2013) (Doc. No. 201), denied a motion to exclude testimony from expert Carl Degan. Ford contended there were two deficiencies in Degan’s opinions: (1) his failure to factor sunk engineering costs into his profitability analysis; and (2) his failure to apportion.
Recent Posts
- DDE cites need for numerical calculation for apportionment, and cites non-technology factors and use patterns as contributing to value
- CAFC issues detailed opinion on apportionment and lost profits; apportionment not required when Panduit test is met
- DDE holds that pleading compliance with the marking statute is not required
- CAFC issues detailed opinion on comparable licenses, addresses cost savings approach
- NDCA allows evidence of capped royalty/book of wisdom and monetarily unquantified noninfringing alternatives
Categories
- 25% Rule
- 271(a)
- 271(f)
- 287(a)
- Accelerated Market Entry Theory
- Admissibility of license agreements
- Analytical Method
- and evidence
- Apportionment
- Apportionment – Degree of Use
- apportionment – claim scope
- Apportionment – rate apportioning
- apportionment – real estate approach
- Apportionment – Use of Defendant’s Documents
- Asset or patent sale and reasonable royalties
- Assignment
- Bifurcation of damages
- Book of Wisdom
- Breach of Contract
- Comparable Agreements
- Comparable Licenses
- Cost savings approach
- Court as gatekeeper
- Damages articles
- Daubert
- Discoverability of agreements and other damages-related documents
- Discoverability of license negotiation documents
- Do-overs for expert reports
- Enhanced Damages
- Entire market value rule
- Exclusion Order
- Expert witnesses and admissibility of testimony supporting damages
- Extraterritoriality
- Federal Circuit decisions
- Foreign Sales
- Foreign tax laws & damages
- FRAND
- Future Damages
- Hypothetical License
- Hypothetical Negotiation
- Inexorable flow doctrine of lost profits
- ITC
- Joint infringement
- Judgment as a Matter of Law
- Jury verdict form
- Laches
- Large damages verdicts
- Legislative patent damages reform
- Lost Profits
- Lost profits – market share
- Lost profits requires patentee product
- Lump sum awards and issues
- Market approach
- Marking
- Misuse
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Nash Bargaining Solution
- Net profits computations
- New trial
- Non-infringing alternatives
- Notice
- NPE-specific issues
- Ongoing royalties
- Panduit
- Patent damages books and articles
- Patent damages speeches and seminars
- Patent marking
- Permanent injunction
- Piggy-backing experts
- Post verdict royalties
- Post-Hypo Date Evidence
- Prejudgment interest
- Price Erosion
- Profitability of accused products and royalties
- RAND
- Real Estate Apportionment
- Reasonable royalties: capped
- Reasonable Royalty
- Reasonable royalty – license agreements
- Reasonable royalty – litigation risk multiplier
- Related Entities
- Royalty rate exceeds defendant's profit margin
- Royalty Rate Exceeds Rate to Which Parties Stipulated
- Rule 702
- Sanctions
- Settlement agreements
- Smallest Salable Patent Practicing Unit
- Spoliation
- Standards
- Standing
- Statutory Presumption of Damages
- Stay of damages awards pending appeal
- Subsidary
- Summary Judgment
- Summary judgment for failure of proof
- Supplemental Damages
- Surface Area Apportionment
- Surveys
- U.S. Government Sales and 28 USC 1498
- Uncategorized