Defendant's motion to exclude plaintiff's damages expert was denied. "[Defendant] claims [the expert's] methodology for concocting the reasonable royalty [a 25% "rule of thumb"] is just not 'good science.' But this is like saying Alice did not serve Earl Gray at her tea party. Maybe so, but in this fictional world it is close enough because the starting premise . . . is at least arguably grounded in the evidence and the rule of thumb calculation and the Georgia-Pacific factors are so widely accepted."
Uniloc USA, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 1-03-cv-00440 (RID March 16, 2009, Order)
No comments:
Post a Comment