Litigation

Whether calculating lost profits or performing a 'reasonable royalty' analysis under the Georgia-Pacific factors, a damages expert in a patent case is required to consider a large variety of data ' not just data from the plaintiff or the defendant, but also data from third-party sources, such as trade industry publications or market analyst reports. The admissibility of an opinion based on third-party information, however, has been a source of conflict since 1993, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.

Part One of this series discussed the two types of reduction to practice: constructive and actual. This installment continues the discussion of satisfying the second prong of the actual reduction to practice test.

Dorsey & Whitney LLP is a firm of more than 600 lawyers with a litigation and arbitration practice in 15 locations in the United States and in London, Hong Kong and Shanghai. I joined the firm's New York office in the fall of 2005 and assumed, among other duties, the task of advising on the litigation department's deployment of discovery technology for large and complex matters.
In part due to the management of the electronic evidence in this dispute, Dorsey's client obtained an order in September 2006 denying class certification and strongly pointing toward the ultimate disposal of the matter. As discussed below, our implementation of the Ringtail Legal 2005 hosted ASP solution ' and the support by FTI Consulting ' was important in this very favorable outcome.

The plethora of tools designed to make quick work of searching digital files appear to make most data collection tasks trivial. Products such as Google Desktop Search, DTSearch, Microsoft's Lookout and X1's eponymous set of search tools index digital files and e-mail, while providing fast and accurate search results. Of course, the promise of these tools stands in direct contrast to the warnings that litter industry trade publications, admonishing that anything less than a 'forensic' collection could be considered indefensible ' at best leading to a ruling for adverse inference, and at worst resulting in sanctions.

Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

Since the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') set forth its pre-emption analysis in the preamble to its Jan. 24, 2006 drug-labeling rule, there has been a flood of judicial opinions analyzing the scope and applicability of the pre-emption defense in prescription drug litigation. The cases have been sharply divided, and the defense now appears likely to be a key issue that will be addressed in all cases going forward. In this continuing coverage, I summarize the pre-emption opinions that have been handed down since my last article in the November 2006 issue of this newsletter. For an analysis of the legal arguments in support of pre-emption and the FDA preamble, see Eric G. Lasker, Prescription Drug Litigation Pre-emption Following the FDA Preamble, LJN's Product Liability Law & Strategy, Vol. 25, No. 4 (October 2006).

The first part of this article discussed the Delaware court's decision in In re Asbestos Litigation, the role of epidemiology in proving causation, and the interpretation of the Daubert decision by several courts. The conclusion examines the role of courts as gatekeepers.

Two appellate courts recently ruled that an individual who intentionally visited Web sites to view child pornography, but who did not intentionally save those images to his computer's hard drive, could not be convicted or punished for possessing images that were automatically saved due to the Web browser's cache functions. These rulings strike me as badly mistaken, for reasons that I shall explain further below.