§Why CasetextPricing

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

RESPONSE

27 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,449 times   228 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. I4I Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.

    598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 642 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party's quarrel with the facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert's opinion

  3. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

    757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 455 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when deciding whether the means test is triggered, the question is whether "in view of the specification, prosecution history, etc.," the patent "still provide sufficient structure such that the presumption against means-plus-function claiming remains intact"

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

    632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 416 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

  5. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.

    56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 653 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to be an exclusive licensee a party may rely on either an express or implied promise of exclusivity

  6. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.

    773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 313 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a general verdict will not be set aside if there is sufficient evidence to support any of the alternative factual theories so long as there is no dispute over the legal propriety of the jury instruction

  7. Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

    767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 296 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the entire market value rule applies if the patentee establishes that its "patented technology drove demand for the entire product."

  8. Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

    594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 301 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

  9. Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding

    581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 296 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding no contributory infringement as a matter of law because "the accused devices are indisputably capable of non-infringing use" and the patent owner could not show the use was insubstantial

  10. Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Laboratories

    271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 197 times
    Finding that it is the patentee's obligation to present a detailed basis of its evidence such that the district court can evaluate whether it supports a finding of infringement

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,837 times   260 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,751 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted