After the judge excluded a key part of the analysis of the plaintiffs’ damages expert, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas found for defendant Intel in this patent case.
Following a ruling in which the judge excluded a key part of the analysis of the plaintiffs’ damages expert, a jury in the Eastern District of Texas found Intel Corporation not liable for infringement of a patent purportedly relating to error detection in server microprocessors. In a comprehensive victory for Intel, the jury also found that the underlying patent was invalid.
Cornerstone Research worked with two experts on behalf of defendant Intel to respond to the opinions of the plaintiffs’ damages expert. Professor Lorin Hitt of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, submitted a critique of the plaintiffs’ expert’s hedonic regression analysis. The plaintiffs’ expert used hedonic regression analysis to attempt to measure the incremental contribution of the patented feature in question. Mary Woodford, a senior advisor at Cornerstone Research, addressed reasonable royalty damages.
In a comprehensive victory for Intel, the jury also found that the underlying patent was invalid.
On the eve of trial, Judge Timothy Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation, ruled that the plaintiffs would not be allowed to present their expert’s hedonic regression analysis to the jury because of “the unreliability of [plaintiffs’ expert’s] application of hedonic regression analysis to the facts in this case.” Ms. Woodford testified at trial and presented her damages analysis to the jury.
Intel was represented by Perkins Coie; Potter Minton; and Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth.
