The Radio Dee-Jay vs. the Pop Star

DAVID MUELLER, Plaintiff,
v.
TAYLOR SWIFT, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 15-cv-1974-WJM-KLM
United States District Court, D. Colorado
July 20, 2017.
In this case, the plaintiff, David Mueller (“Mueller”) is suing Taylor Swift (“Swift”), yes, that Taylor Swift, for tortious interference with his employment contract and with related business expectancies,

Pitfalls of Not Retaining a Competent Damages Expert

Selecting the right expert is one of a litigator’s most important challenges.  Selecting the wrong expert can destroy a perfectly potent case.  This is a synopsis of what happened when the Plaintiff retained the wrong expert and saw their millions of dollars in damages evaporate.
In the matter of Horizon Health Corporation v.

Supreme Court Reverses Apple’s $399 Million Damages Award Calculated Based on Samsung’s Entire Profits on Infringing Smartphone Sales

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al. v. Apple Inc.Supreme Court of the United States: Decided December 6, 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a $399 million damages award to Apple for Samsung’s infringement of smartphone design patents, holding that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) erred in its interpretation of Section 289 of the Patent Act in its determination of damages.

Prejudgment Interest on Lost Profits under New York Law

Washington, et al. v. Kellwood Co., Civil Action No. 05-CV-10034 (SN)
United States District Court, S.D. New York: Decided March 4, 2016
In an exclusive licensing contract entered on November 25, 2003, Kellwood Company (“Kellwood”), a clothing manufacturer, agreed to manufacture, promote, and sell performance athletic apparel under the plaintiffs’ brand name “Sunday Players”. 

Federal Circuit Affirmed Jury’s Lost Profit Awards in Apple v. Samsung Patent Litigation

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, et al., 786 F.3d 983 (2015)
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: Decided May 18, 2015
On appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s finding that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and then affirmed the damages awarded by the jury for the infringements,

Testifying Experts – Size Matters

Almost all of our business at Rosenfarb LLC is generated from litigators – our client base. In addition to all of their other skills, good litigators are very good actors and like all good actors they can play any role. They are sufficiently capable, nimble, quick and smart enough to learn about any subject matter.

Weight v. Admissibility

ALLIED ERECTING AND DISMANTLING CO., INC., Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORTION, Defendant.
Case No. 4:12-cv-1390.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.
April 6, 2015.
This case addresses the testimony of several experts. For purposes of this article, we only discuss the court’s decision regarding the damages expert’s testimony.

The Perils of Waiting Too Long to Retain a Damages Expert

Corning Optical Communications Wireless Ltd. v. Solid, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-03750
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division: Decided April 14, 2015
“Just a few months from trial, and a few weeks from the close of fact discovery . . . neither side has any firm sense of whether this is a $1 case or a case worth billions.” Those were the words of Magistrate Judge Paul S.

Expert’s Opinion Go to Weight Rather Than Admissibility

PHILIPPI-HAGENBUCH, INC., and LEROY HAGENBUCH, Plaintiffs,
v.
WESTERN TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and WOTCO, INC., Defendants.
Case No. 12-1099
United States District Court, C.D. Illinois.
April 8, 2015.
This case was before the Court for a Daubert hearing on two pending Daubert motions, as well as two other motions concerning expert testimony.

Faulty Assumptions Preclude Experts from Testifying

Myservice Force v. Am. Home Shield, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61207 (May 2, 2014)
In this breach of contract action the admissibility of the plaintiff’s two experts’ opinions hinged on one key issue.  One of the expert’s revenue projections utilized a Monte Carlo simulation that the defendant attacked as invalid. The projected revenues formed the basis of the other expert’s determination of the value of the company.