Summary: Psychology Expert Witness testimony was not allowed as the court opined that the expert’s opinions about the conditions in the mental health facility were not relevant.
Court Strikes Portion of Patent Expert Witness Report Based on Improper Methodology
Summary: The report of a Patent Expert Witness was limited in a copyright infringement case as to the apportionment of damages
Facts: This case (Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. – United States District Court- Northern District of California – March 13, 2012) involves a patent dispute. The plaintiff, Oracle America, alleges that the defendant, Google, used code that was copyrighted. Dr. Ian Cockburn wrote a damages report for this case which included five methods of apportionment. First, Dr. Cockburn reviewed the 2006 request for $99 million to Google. Second, he suggested adjusting the pay of the lawsuit to $557 million to match potential lost revenue. Third, he adds on another $28 million by removing a revenue-sharing cap. Fourth, he encourages the use of alternative methods including the “group and value” and “independent significance” approaches. Fifth, he downwardly adjusts because of potential extraterritorial infringement. After the damage report had been reviewed, Dr. Cockburn’s calculated patent damages stood between $18 and $56 million with the copyright lost license fee between $35 and $112 million. Google then acted to strike the report.
Discussion: The court evaluated Dr. Cockburn’s potential apportionment methods. Dr. Cockburn started with the “Group and Value” method which focuses on specific patents and copyrights with the payment from Google to Oracle equaling their importance to the function of the smartphone. Google opines that this was a biased approach because Oracle engineers gave each patent their value, though this ended up being a point for cross examination instead. Dr. Cockburn concluded that there were lower and upper bound patents with the upper bound patents carrying more weight, thus being more of value. The court took issue with the upper bound ranking and ended up striking it with the lower bound and overall group and value method being approved. Additionally, damages did not have to be apportioned on a claim-by-claim basis and Dr. Cockburn’s value distribution curve was allowed to be applied after Google refuted their use.
Forensic Accounting Expert Witness Testimony Excluded in Hotel Litigation
Summary: Forensic Accounting Expert Witness testimony not allowed as the court opined that the expert did not have first-hand knowledge of the case at hand.
Psychology Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Employment Litigation
Summary: Psychology Expert Witness allowed to testify as the court opined that the expert has sufficient basis for his opinions.
Railroad Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Personal Injury Claim
Summary: Railroad Expert Witness allowed to provide expert testimony as the court opined that the credibility of the expert can be determined at cross-examination.
Geology Expert Witness Testimony Excluded in Groundwater Contamination Litigation
Summary: Geology Expert Witness not allowed to provide testimony as the expert did not explain how his conclusions were more than guesses.
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Insurance Case
Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in automobile accident case as the court opined that his testimony is relevant.
Criminology Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Wrongful Death Action
Summary: Criminology Expert Witness testimony allowed by the court as other courts have allowed the expert to provide testimony on his area of topic.
Pharmacology Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Wrongful Distribution of Medicine Claim
Summary: Pharmacology Expert Witness allowed in case claiming wrongful distribution of medication even though his report was produced from the facts in the case.
Personal Property Valuation Expert Witness Testimony Allowed In Property Damage Litigation
Summary: Defendant hired a Personal Property Valuation Expert Witness to provide testimony in relation to damage caused by Hurricane Harvey despite the plaintiff’s claim that the expert did not keep his notes.