And more case analysis added to BVLaw


 

Here's a sampling of some of the other decisions we've covered where financial analysis methods were recently challenged at the appellate level.

 

Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Electronics, Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90398 (June 28, 2012)

Court affirms $23 million patent infringement award based on apportionment analysis of the plaintiff’s expert, which relied on internal as well as external documentation of value of patented technology without improperly invoking entire market value of infringing product.

                          

Experts: James Nawrocki

 

Judge:  Davis

 

State/Jurisdiction: Texas/ federal

 

Court: U.S. district court

 

Type of case: IP

 

SIC code: 4813 Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone (except resellers)

 

Bakst v. United States of America (In re: Kane & Kane), 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3223 (July16, 2012)

In fraudulent conveyance suit, bankruptcy court admits expert’s testimony on reasonable compensation as it relates to reasonably equivalent value for the debtor law firm’s payment of its partners’ income taxes, but strikes insolvency expert’s opinion for applying GAAP standard of valuing contingent claims instead of applicable legal standard.

                          

Experts: Robert Zucker (plaintiff/trustee); James Reda and William Michaelson (defendant/government)

 

Judge:  Kimball

 

State/Jurisdiction:  federal

 

Court: Bankruptcy court

 

Type of case:  bankruptcy

 

SIC code: 8111 Legal Services

 

Basile Baumann Prost Cole & Assoc. v. BBP & Assoc. LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103915 (July 25, 2012)

 

Court strikes expert’s “lost asset value” theory of  damages for trademark infringement because it relied entirely on the plaintiff’s allegations that it lost all of its goodwill value due to the defendants’ actions, without adequate proof.

                          

Experts: Frank Walker (plaintiff)

 

Judge:  Quarles Jr.

 

State/Jurisdiction: federal/Maryland

 

Court: U.S. District Court

 

Type of case:  IP

 

SIC code: 6552 Land Subdividers and Developers, Except Cemeteries

 

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98230 (July 16, 2012)

 

Court excludes expert’s reasonable royalty analysis because it assumed a “financially catastrophic” deal for the licensor, one that would have eliminated all profits and revenues.

                          

Experts: Raymond Sims (plaintiff)

 

Judge:  Ellison

 

State/Jurisdiction: federal/Texas

 

Court: U.S. Dist. Court

 

Type of case:  IP

 

SIC code: 1382 Oil and Gas Field Exploration Services

 

 

Natchez Regional Medical Center v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99479 (July 18, 2012)

Court affirms that Daubert does not require an expert to be certified in accounting or another specialty, so long as he/she possesses the requisite knowledge and experience; and it admits testimony of hospital turnaround and restructuring expert in case alleging fraudulent accounting practices by management company.

                          

Experts: Scott Phillips (plaintiff) and J.W. Tillet (defendant)

 

Judge:  Bramlette

 

State/Jurisdiction: Mississippi/federal

 

Court: U.S. Dist. Court

 

Type of case:  contract

 

SIC code: 8062 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals

 

 

TXCO Resources, Inc. v. Peregrine Petroleum, LLC (In re: TXCO Resources, Inc., 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3425 (July 26, 2012)

Court denies lost profits damages for trade secret misappropriation in oil and gas case, but calculates $15.8 million reasonable royalty award based on prior “licenses” (farmout and joint exploration agreements) that were particular to the plaintiff and customary in the industry.

                          

Experts: Paul Szatkowski (plaintiff)

 

Judge:  King

 

State/Jurisdiction:  federal/Texas

 

Court: Bankruptcy

 

Type of case:  IP

 

SIC code: 1382 Oil and Gas Field Exploration Services

 

 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. St. Anselm Exploration Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100124 (July 19, 2012)

 

Court denies “dueling” Daubert motion in securities fraud case concerning an oil and gas company, finding the experts on both sides relied on relevant facts and data and generally accepted methodology, including the comparable sales approach that used BLM data regarding sales of geothermal leases.

                          

Experts: Steven Schuster and Leslie O’Conner (plaintiff)

 

Judge: Blackburn

 

State/Jurisdiction:  federal/Colorado

 

Court: U.S. district court

 

Type of case:  securities

 

SIC code: 1382 Oil and Gas Field Exploration Services


Categories