Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Damages Expert May Rely on the Opinions of Other Experts to Form Independent Damages Conclusions (Good Quote)

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd.,  2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135208 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2013):

[T]he Court has already discussed the propriety of Ms. Lawton's price premium and excess profits analysis. [S]he based her reasonable royalty opinion on the opinion of Dr. Bajorek that the technology became "industry standard" and was "must have" for Marvell's survival and his other opinions regarding the value of the Accused Technology to Marvell's customers in order to establish liability. (Docket No. 686 at 68); see, e.g., Member Services, Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, Civ No. 06-1164, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103776, 2010 WL 3907489, at *27 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010) (an "expert may rely upon another expert to form an opinion under Rule 703" as long as the expert does not "merely recite another expert's opinion  as his own"). Ms. Lawton also relied on Dr. McLaughlin's opinions on the infringement of the claimed algorithm on the MNP and NLD chips again in order to assume liability. See, e.g., Sys. Dev. Integration, LLC v. Computer Scis. Corp., 886 F. Supp. 2d 873, 882 (N.D. Ill. 2012) ("It is entirely appropriate for a damages expert to assume liability for the purposes of his or her opinion. To hold otherwise would be illogical." ); Sancom, Inc. v. Qwest Communs. Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1043, 1068 (D.S.D. 2010) ("it is well-settled that a damages expert ... can testify as to damages while assuming the underlying liability"). The specific challenges to the factual underpinnings of these expert opinions go to the weight to be afforded to their respective testimonies. See Miller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151388, 2011 WL 7037127, at *3 n.3. 

Share this article:


Recent Posts