Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Weighing the Benefits: How Much Weight Will Your Survey Have in Court?
As consumer surveys become increasingly common forms of evidence in matters involving copyright, patent or trademark infringement, so too do Daubert challenges that attempt to disqualify that evidence. In a previous article, our Analysis Group colleagues drew on our collection of over 300 U.S. court rulings to provide tips on how to conquer the admissibility hurdle.
However, getting admitted into court is no guarantee of success — you are not over the entire Daubert hurdle just yet. The next step is ensuring that your survey is given the appropriate weight, i.e., convincing the fact finders that your survey's results are dependable and useful.
Technical Flaws Are More Likely to Impact a Survey's Weight than Its Admissibility
As described in our first article in the July issue (see, "Survey Says: Tips on Getting Over the Daubert Hurdle"), some survey flaws can be fatal, leading to exclusion under Daubert and causing real harm to a case and potentially to the credibility of the expert who submitted the excluded survey. However, in other instances, even surveys that have been found to suffer certain technical flaws may ultimately be admitted into evidence. This is especially true when the court concludes that the flaws identified in the Daubert briefings have more bearing on a survey's weight (or credibility) rather than on its admissibility.
This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.