17 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 20,294 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Fed. R. Evid. 702 authorizes a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony [of an expert] is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue"
  2. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

    657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 781 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 345 times   19 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 242 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding the settlement license agreement in question had "very little relation to demonstrated economic demand for the patented technology, and its probative value is greatly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury"; therefore, concluding the district court had abused its discretion in admitting the settlement agreement into evidence
  5. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 243 times   4 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 187 times   19 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 133 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 132 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 54 times   3 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. U.S. v. Rincon

    28 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that comprehensive jury instruction on eyewitness identification was preferable to expert testimony under the circumstances
  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 19,557 times   165 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" may assist the trier of fact
  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 5,152 times   871 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"