Case Cite

Accessories Marketing, Inc. v. TEK Corp., No. C 11-4773 PSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013).

IPDQ Commentary

As trial approaches, many courts take a pragmatic approach to the testimony of damages experts. In Accessory Marketing, the district court allowed Plaintiff’s expert to testify at trial by repeatedly referencing Defendant’s ability to cross-examine to demonstrate weaknesses in the damages opinion.

Case Summary

Defendant moved to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s damages expert, John Hansen, on four grounds. Slip op. id. at 1. Denying the motion, the district court ruled:

  • Although Hansen considered the competitive position of Plaintiff’s sister company, (1) Defendant and Plaintiff’s sister company were in competition; (2) given the relationship between Plaintiff and its sister company, a license to Defendant could ultimately affect Plaintiff’s profits; and (3) any confusion about Plaintiff’s ability to recover damages for its sister company could be cleared up with vigorous cross-examination. Slip op. id. at 2.
  • Hansen could rely on the testimony of another witness regarding the purchase of the patent-in-suit. Slip op. id. at 1-2.
  • Plaintiff had adequately disclosed that it might seek reasonable royalty damages and made Hansen available for deposition. Slip op. id. at 3.
  • Hansen properly considered a hypothetical negotiation in reaching his damage opinion, plus he would be subject to cross-examination on that opinion at trial. Slip op. id. at 3.