The Federal Circuit's ruling in EcoFactor v. Google highlights a more rigorous evaluation of expert testimony for patent damages. Overturning a $20 million jury award, the court ruled that the plaintiff's expert evidence did not meet reliability standards outlined by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, as it was based on unverified assumptions regarding royalty rates from past license agreements. Judge Moore asserted that the case reflects a broader doctrinal transformation regarding remedies, indicating a trend towards stricter scrutiny of evidence and damages in patent cases.
The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in EcoFactor v. Google imposes stricter standards for patent damages expert testimony, emphasizing the reliability of evidence under Rule 702.
The court overturned a $20 million jury award, deeming the expert's reliance on speculative assumptions about past agreements as inadequate under Daubert's standards.
Chief Judge Moore differentiated factual disputes from contract interpretation, asserting the trial judge failed in his duty to evaluate expert reliability thoroughly.
Dissenting judges criticized the majority for overreaching the scope of Rule 702 and infringing upon the jury's role, suggesting a more evidence-based approach.
Collection
[
|
...
]