§Why CasetextPricing

Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM

38 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,989 times   238 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 12,926 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

  3. Smith v. Ford Motor Co.

    215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 706 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court must consider whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact with its analysis of any of the issues involved in the case"

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

    632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 425 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 660 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. Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.

    694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 340 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 6% royalty rate damages theory should be excluded on remand because it was based on insufficiently comparable licenses

  7. Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.

    694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 324 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not err in concluding that terms had plain meanings that did not require construction and in rejecting one party's proposed construction, which erroneously read limitations into the claims

  8. Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.

    317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 297 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, once a court makes a definitive evidentiary ruling on the record, a party need not renew an objection to preserve appeal rights

  9. Crystal Semicond. v. Tritech Microelec

    246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 304 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "patentee may obtain lost profit damages for that portion of the infringer's sales for which the patentee can demonstrate 'but for' causation and reasonable royalties for any remaining infringing [sales]"; further holding patentee may also recover for "[r]eduction of [its] prices, and consequent loss of profits, enforced by infringing competition"

  10. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.

    318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)   Cited 753 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit” is a relevant factor for the jury to consider

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,511 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,930 times   140 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  13. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,116 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

  14. Section 154 - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights

    35 U.S.C. § 154   Cited 774 times   270 Legal Analyses
    Granting twenty years for utility patents