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.

Winning Decision for Rosenfarb’s Clients

High praise given to Sam Rosenfarb by HON. IRA GAMMERMAN (Ret.) Justice of the Supreme Court, New York:
“Rosenfarb, who had many degrees and who was in my opinion an expert in both giving testimony on the issue of what would be appropriate compensation and on many other things. He’s an expert appraiser and he submitted a report and testified at some length regarding the value of the services that the three defendants had rendered or were rendering….

Delaware Chancery Adopts ‘Unfamiliar’ Valuation Methodology

Laidler v. Hesco Bastion Environmental, Inc., 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 75 (May 12, 2014)
The Delaware Court of Chancery regularly uses the discounted cash flow (DCF) method in statutory appraisal actions, but in a recent case that was not feasible. The case involved a group of related companies that operated in the flood barrier industry.

U.S. Court of Appeals Holds Government Was Not Required to Establish Intervening Cause in Lost Profits Case

NYCAL Offshore Development Corporation v. United States, 743 F.3d 837 (2014)
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: Decided February 20, 2014
In 1982, the federal government developed a program of selling oil and gas leases to oil companies and issued leases for oil fields off the Southern California coast.

Jury Awards More Than Plaintiff’s Expert

Alaska Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12709 (June 19, 2013)
In appealing a $16 million jury award to Alaska Rent-A-Car for the breach of a settlement agreement, Avis claimed the plaintiff’s expert made unsupportable assumptions and comparisons regarding the market and other car rental companies that compromised his calculations.