Robocast Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 1-10-cv-01055 (DED January 16, 2014, Order) (Andrews, J.)
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Patent Sale Supporting Damages Expert’s Analysis Need Not be “Economically Comparable”
The court denied plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of defendant's damages expert because the expert relied in part on the sale of a technologically comparable patent. "[Plaintiff's] issue with the use of [a patent] sale seems to be based on the argument that in addition to technological comparability, there must be economic comparability of the value of the technology. This is circular. . . . The [patent] sale was not a license agreement, but an outright sale of patent rights. Thus it represents the maximum value someone was willing to pay for the technology. If anything, this type of transaction overstates the value which [defendant] would place on a license for comparable technology. It nevertheless serves as a relevant data point in determining the value which the parties to the hypothetical negotiation would place on technologically similar patents, in this case the [patent-in-suit]."