Patent Damages

CDCA excludes reasonable royalty testimony due to unreliable license analysis

On April 21, 2014, Judge Guilford of the Central District of California issued an opinion on Daubert motions.  The case is Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., Case No. SA-CV 12-00329 AG (JPRx).  The parties had filed several motions to exclude evidence on a wide array of issues.  One motion of interest relates to plaintiff’s damages expert’s opinions on reasonable royalty.  The expert, Frank Bernatowicz, had reached a “baseline” royalty rate of 3% using allegedly comparable licenses as a benchmark.  Defendant moved to exclude the royalty opinions contending that Bernatowicz’s license analysis was flawed.  The court agreed and excluded Bernatowicz’s testimony on reasonable royalty damages.


Licenses dated after hypo negotiation not excluded

On June 15, 2012, the District of Idaho in Hoyt A. Fleming v. Escort Inc., 109-cv-00105 (IDD) (D. Idaho June 15, 2021), the court addressed two reasonable royalty issues:  1) whether license agreements dated after the alleged infringement began (and thus after the hypothetical negotiation date) were admissible, and 2) whether the ex post ante licensing deals would be relevant.  The alleged infringement began in 2007, and the deals were made in 2010 and 2012.