Here is the order, and here is a link to a just-posted notice about it on Law360. From the order:
The parties are requested to file new briefs, which shall be limited to addressing the district court’s adherence to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), in its allowance of testimony from Eco-Factor’s damages expert assigning a per-unit royalty rate to the three licenses in evidence in this case.
The original panel decision came down in June, and I blogged about it here. Various amici filed briefs urging the rehearing, as reported by Dennis Crouch a few weeks ago in an informative post on Patently-O, with links to the briefs (see also his earlier post on Google's petition for rehearing en banc). I confess that I have no clear idea where this is headed, but if the court succeeds in providing some greater clarity on the standards for admissible testimony on damages, and on the use of comparables, that could be helpful. I may have more to say about this as the case progresses.
Update: here is a link to a follow-up Law360 article that quotes, among others, me, and here is a link to an article on Bloomberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment