直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Upholds Exclusion of Damages Expert Testimony

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.

Tags

Northern District of California, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), reasonable royalty, damages, remedies

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electrical and Computer Technology

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Matthew M. Karas
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2745
Email
Christina Ji-Hye Yang
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4465
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

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.

Related Insights

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

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

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

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.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP