The court denied defendants' motion in limine to exclude portions of plaintiff's damages expert's testimony. "As [plaintiff's expert] explains in his report, in 1996, [a third party and a defendant] entered into a license agreement in which [defendant] agreed to pay [the third party] a royalty equal to 25% of the manufacturing cost savings that resulted from [defendant's] use of the licensed technology. Rather than relying on the industry 25% rule of thumb rejected in [Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011)], [plaintiff's expert's] use of a 25% apportionment factor is instead based on an actual, arms-length license agreement entered into by [defendant] -- who is a party to the hypothetical negotiation in this case."
Convolve, Inc. v. Dell Inc., et. al., 2-08-cv-00244 (TXED July 8, 2011, Order) (Everingham, M.J.).