§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Mr. David Yurkerwich and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

17 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,335 times   228 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

    657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 1,124 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs' commonality must connect to their claim for class relief

  3. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

    632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 414 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence relying on "25 percent rule of thumb," which was a tool used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate the manufacturer of patented product would be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation, was inadmissible under Daubert since it failed to tie a reasonably royalty base to facts of case at issue

  4. Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.

    694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 329 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 6% royalty rate damages theory should be excluded on remand because it was based on insufficiently comparable licenses

  5. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 300 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of royalty rates from licenses without a relationship to the claimed invention could not form the basis of a reasonable royalty calculation

  6. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.

    711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 238 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding "damages for infringement may account for both lost sales and reduction of prices due to infringing competition," as "an infringer's activities do more than divert sales to the infringer [t]hey also depress the price of the patented product"

  7. Microstrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A

    429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 146 times
    Holding that "this court reviews a district court's evidentiary rulings under the law of the regional circuit"

  8. Riles v. Shell Exploration and Production

    298 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying enhancement of damages for willfulness, stating that: "the case was hard-fought, and that the jury could have found for Shell on the infringement and willfulness issues and could have awarded substantially less damages. In addition, the trial court weighed Shell's litigation behavior and found no reason for an award of enhanced damages."

  9. Scientific v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

    809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 90 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding the district court's analysis of the reasonable royalty based on a prior negotiation between the parties "already built in apportionment" without analysis of the smallest salable unit

  10. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.

    904 F.3d 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 57 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing a patentee is generally entitled "to a reasonable royalty attributable to the infringing features," but that a patentee may recover the "value of an entire apparatus containing several features, when the feature patented constitutes the basis for consumer demand"

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,717 times   256 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,052 times   1053 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"