Judge Tunheim Denies Motion to Exclude Damages Analysis Despite Omissions

Judge Tunheim denied Arctic Cat’s motion to exclude Bombardier’s damages testimony.  Arctic Cat raised a number of issues in their motion including both Bombardier’s inclusion of repair parts, accessories, and warranties in lost profits and Bombardier’s apportionment methodology.

Arctic Cat first argued that Bombardier’s expert improperly included parts, accessories, and warranties in his lost profits calculation without showing a functional relationship with the accused products.  Judge Tunheim agreed that Bombardier’s expert did not show a functional relationship but denied Arctic Cat’s motion on this point.  He explained that Federal Circuit precedent suggests lost profits are available on spare parts.  The order cites two cases including King Instruments Corp. v. Perego, 65 F.3d 941, 953 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc., 72 F.3d 872, 882 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Arctic Cat further challenged Bombardier’s reasonable royalty methodology on the grounds that their expert failed to apportion.  Bombardier’s expert attributed the difference in profit between accused snowmobiles and noninfringing snowmobiles entirely to the patents-in-suit.  Judge Tunheim agreed that Bombadier’s expert did not discuss apportionment explicitly but denied Arctic Cat’s motion on this point as well.  The order explains that Bombardier’s expert discussed his basis for attributing the demand for accused snowmobiles to the patented features and considered apportionment indirectly as part of his Georgia-Pacific analysis.

-- Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc et al v. Arctic Cat, Inc et al, 0-12-cv-02706 (MND), Doc 789.



Source: Docket Navigator
Image attribution: Javrri via VisualHunt.com /  CC BY-NC-SA.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judge Otero Approves Cost-Savings-Based Apportionment for Process Patent

Image
Judge Otero denied Kaneka's motion in limine to preclude portions of Defendants' rebuttal damages report.  Defendants' damages expert calculated a base for each defendant by comparing their cost of manufacturing under the patented method with their cost of manufacturing using an earlier unpatented method.  Their expert further opined that a reasonable royalty rate should be no more than 3% for each defendant. Plaintiff Kaneka argued that Defendants' report improperly apportioned the royalty base using a cost-savings methodology.  Kaneka further argued that apportionment was improper in this case because the patented features create the basis for customer demand. Judge Otero ruled that Defendants' apportionment methodology was sufficiently reliable to pass muster under Rule 702.  The order cites a similar ruling in a companion litigation. Judge Otero further ruled that apportionment was not improper in this case.  Judge Otero explained that Kaneka did no...
Read more

Magistrate Judge Denies Motion to Stay Pending IPR Petitions

Image
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell denied defendants' motion to stay pending their petitions for inter partes review.  The order points out that the PTAB has yet to institute an IPR with respect to the asserted patents.  It notes that,  in the Eastern District of Texas, pre-institution stays are typically denied or postponed until the PTAB acts on the petition for review. -- Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCL Corporation et al, 6-15-cv-00918 (TXED), Doc 124. Source: DocketNavigator.com
Read more