September 2, 2021
Authored and Edited by Matthew M. Karas; Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 2020-1413 (August 26, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision to exclude testimony from MLC’s damages expert.
In the underlying district court case, MLC’s expert, Mr. Milani, offered a damages calculation based separately on a comparable licensing approach and a smallest saleable patent practicing unit (SSPPU) approach. Micron filed a motion in limine and a motion to strike, to limit Mr. Milani’s testimony, as well as a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony entirely. The district court granted all three motions.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. Regarding the motion in limine, the Federal Circuit agreed that Mr. Milani made unsupported assertions concerning how lump sum agreements were tied to a 0.25% royalty rate. With the motion to strike, the Federal Circuit found that MLC had not provided all the extrinsic evidence Mr. Milani relied on, upholding the district court. Finally, the Federal Circuit affirmed the granting of Micron’s Daubert motion because Mr. Milani did not apportion damages based on nonpatented features and the agreements presented could not remedy this insufficiency.
Northern District of California, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), reasonable royalty, damages, remedies
Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay
May 14, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case
May 14, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.