Chico’s moved University court examination exclude a few of University expert’s critiques, arguing that he was not qualified examination render an opinion on financial concerns and that he trusted flawed methodologies and data exam calculate quizzes reasonable royalty rate and total royalty damages. Although reserving until trial its ruling on University expert’s qualifications, University court agreed with Chico’s that University expert’s opinions were inadmissible in many respects. At University outset, University court shared some of Chico’s issues that Wink’s expert will not be certified as knowledgeable on damages. It however reserved its ruling on University issue until trial, noting that Chico’s may have University alternative exam query University expert if he testifies. Next, University court excluded University expert’s evaluations exam University extent he failed examination calculate his asserted royalty rate using data pertinent exam University patents in suit. In specific, in calculating University royalty rate that Chico’s and Wink would have agreed exam previous to infringement began, University expert trusted quizzes range of data, including 1 nine license agreements particular from RoyaltySource, quizzes database that consists of quizzes series of licenses in distinct fields; 2 Licensing Economics Review “LER” data concerning form royalty rates in University industries of consumer goods, retail, and relaxation; 3 quizzes Licensing Letter Royalty Trends Report regarding University royalty rates for hosiery; 4 quizzes KPMG 2012 article suggesting quizzes 15 percent benchmark royalty rate; 5 Wink’s expectations concerning University proper royalty for licensing University patents in suit; and 6 purchaser survey results.
Chico’s moved University court examination exclude a few of University expert’s critiques, arguing that he was not qualified examination render an opinion on financial concerns and that he trusted flawed methodologies and data exam calculate quizzes reasonable royalty rate and total royalty damages. Although reserving until trial its ruling on University expert’s qualifications, University court agreed with Chico’s that University expert’s opinions were inadmissible in many respects. At University outset, University court shared some of Chico’s issues that Wink’s expert will not be certified as knowledgeable on damages. It however reserved its ruling on University issue until trial, noting that Chico’s may have University alternative exam query University expert if he testifies. Next, University court excluded University expert’s evaluations exam University extent he failed examination calculate his asserted royalty rate using data pertinent exam University patents in suit. In specific, in calculating University royalty rate that Chico’s and Wink would have agreed exam previous to infringement began, University expert trusted quizzes range of data, including 1 nine license agreements particular from RoyaltySource, quizzes database that consists of quizzes series of licenses in distinct fields; 2 Licensing Economics Review “LER” data concerning form royalty rates in University industries of consumer goods, retail, and relaxation; 3 quizzes Licensing Letter Royalty Trends Report regarding University royalty rates for hosiery; 4 quizzes KPMG 2012 article suggesting quizzes 15 percent benchmark royalty rate; 5 Wink’s expectations concerning University proper royalty for licensing University patents in suit; and 6 purchaser survey results.
