Entire Market Value Rule Requires More than Marketing Materials Highlighting Patented Feature

The court granted defendant's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's damages expert regarding reasonable royalty damages as unreliable for a lack of apportionment. "[The expert's] opinions on a reasonable royalty rate must be excluded because he did not engage in any apportionment or attempt to separate the value of the patented features from the unpatented features. . . . [The expert's] basis for concluding that the patented features drive demand is insufficient. He relies on the fact that [plaintiff] chooses to highlight the patented features in its marketing to conclude that the patented features drive consumer demand. However, the fact that a company chooses to advertise its products in a certain way says nothing about why a customer chooses to purchase a particular product. . . . [T]he accused air handling systems are made up of several components, including components that are not accused of infringement. . . . [Plaintiff] has not supported its use of the entire market value rule in this case. . . ."

CES Group, LLC v. Energy Labs, Inc. et al, 5-14-cv-02919 (CAND July 15, 2016, Order) (Freeman, J.)