The Eastern District of Michigan, in Linear Group Services, LLC v. Attica Automation, Inc., Case No. 13-10108 (Judge Gershwin A. Drain) (Aug. 25, 2014), addressed several motions in limine. One of the issues involved evidence related to the analytical method for computing reasonable royalty damages. The opinion is brief, and so we quote in full (slip op. at 7-8):
While Linear is correct in identifying that the quality of Attica’s products and the company’s reputation would be taken into consideration under the Georgia-Pacific Hypothetical Negotiation approach, Attica, the patentee, has stated that it intends to establish damages via the analytical method. The analytical method focuses on the infringer’s projections of profits or the infringing product, regardless of what the parties might have hypothetically agreed to had they successfully negotiated before the infringement began. TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (describing the analytical method as “subtract[ing] the infringer’s usual or acceptable net profit from its anticipated net profit realized from sales of infringing devices”).
The Court will grant Attica’s Motion in Limine to preclude Linear from presenting opinion testimony on the quality of Attica’s products and Attica’s company reputation.