Category: Intellectual Property Expert Witness
-
Intellectual Property Expert’s Fair Use Opinion Admitted
The Volga German people are individuals of German origin who moved to the Volga region of Russia in the eighteenth century. Many of the descendants of the Volga German people have moved to other parts of the world after persecution of Germans in Russia. There is a sizable Volga German diasporain the American Midwest. Plaintiff…
-
Marketing Expert’s Testimony Was Admitted Despite His Lack of Legal Credentials
X Social Media LLC (“X Social Media”) and X Corp. both use the letter “X” in association with closely related advertising services. Put simply, X Corp. is an online and app-based social-media platform that allows users to create and share a wide range of digital content, including advertisements. X Social Media is an advertising agency…
-
Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Specific Royalty Rate Deemed Unreliable
EcoFactor, Inc. (EcoFactor) owns U.S. Patent No. 8,738,327, which relates to the operation of smart thermostats in computer-networked heating and cooling systems. In January 2020, EcoFactor sued Google in the Western District of Texas, alleging Google’s Nest thermostats infringed claims of the ‘327 patent, among other patents. Before trial, Google filed a motion to exclude the testimony…
-
Marketing Expert’s Consumer Confusion Survey Admitted
Plaintiff Alfwear, Inc. (“Alfwear”) is an outdoor clothing company that sells products under the KÜHL mark. Ibkul is a clothing company specializing in athleisure wear. In November 2021, Alfwear initiated this lawsuit against Ibkul, alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution. Alfwear, Inc. has alleged that the sales of apparel using the IBKÜL trademark infringed Plaintiff’s…
-
Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Settlement Licenses Excluded
Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract is based on a 2001 licensing agreement (“the 2001 License” or “the License”) between Plaintiffs and Defendant Extreme Networks, Inc. (“Extreme”). Plaintiffs retained Mark Chandler to issue an opinion about “agreements and negotiations related to the licensing, development and commercial use of software, copyrights, and other intellectual property.” According…
-
Intellectual Property Expert Witness’ Untimely Affirmative Opinions Excluded
X Social Media LLC (“X Social Media”) and X Corp. both use the letter “X” in association with closely related advertising services. Put simply, X Corp. is a social media company that offers tools and services for advertising and generates the majority of its revenue from ads. X Social Media is an advertising agency that…
-
Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion as to a Safer Design for a Splitting Maul Admitted
Plaintiff, Joseph Ferlito purchased a splitting maul (an axe specially designed for splitting wood) from Defendant, Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. in 2017. Several months later, while the Plaintiff was hanging the maul to store it, the head of the tool detached and struck Plaintiff, causing injuries to his nose and left eye. Plaintiff initiated…
-
Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinions may Assist the Jury’s Statutory Damages Determination
Plaintiffs manufacture, market, and sell premium, luxury, and sports eyewear products, including Ray-Ban, Oakley, and Costa. Plaintiffs own several trademarks for these various brands in the United States. Defendants own and operate the Beach Blvd. Flea Market (the “Flea Market”), in Jacksonville. This is a contributory trademark infringement case involving the repeated display and sale…
-
Intellectual Property Expert Witness’ Testimony About Trademark Custom and Usage Admitted
This is a trademark infringement case involving the trademarked phrase “Freedom Pop”. Plaintiff Proccor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Proccor”) contended that Defendant GAT Sports infringed upon its alleged trademark for a “Freedom Pop” flavored Pre-Rx pre-workout supplement. GAT Sports essentially argued that the phrase was used in a non-trademark, descriptive, way to describe the flavor of its…
-
Intellectual Property Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Because it Does Not Invoke the Entire Market Value Rule
Plaintiff Wireless Alliance, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Wireless Alliance”) brought allegations against Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and AT&T Corp. (“Defendants” or “AT&T”). Wireless Alliance asserted that AT&T infringed on several United States patents concerning enhancements to cellular networking systems. The patents in question include United States Patent No. 9,144,106 (the “‘106 patent”), Patent…
