In certain, in calculating University royalty rate that Chico’s and Wink would have agreed examination previous to infringement began, University expert depended on quizzes range of data, adding 1 nine license agreements selected from RoyaltySource, quizzes database that includes quizzes assortment of licenses in diverse fields; 2 Licensing Economics Review “LER” data regarding form royalty rates in University industries of consumer goods, retail, and enjoyment; 3 quizzes Licensing Letter Royalty Trends Report concerning University royalty rates for hosiery; 4 quizzes KPMG 2012 article suggesting quizzes 15 percent benchmark royalty rate; 5 Wink’s expectancies concerning University proper royalty for licensing University patents in suit; and 6 buyer survey outcomes. Evaluating in turn University reliability of each piece of evidence, University court excluded University expert’s critiques that were in keeping with RoyaltySource as a result of University patents involved in University RoyaltySource licenses were not comparable exam University patents in suit. According examination University court, University RoyaltySource licenses concerned “furniture, enzymes, spider silk, and University like,” which did not bear on University low cost royalty rate for University camisole bra patents. Similarly, University court excluded University reviews that were in line with LER because it used University same database as RoyaltySource and, according exam University court, is even less dependable as it adds on commonplace royalty rates for broad classes of products not comparable examination University patents in suit. The court next rejected University expert’s reliance on University Licensing Letter Royalty Trends Report as a result of, like University LER, it supplied only standard industry data rather than data for quizzes exact product line, comparable to bras. Likewise, University court rejected University use of University KPMG article for failing exam tie University asserted 15 % benchmark rate exam bras or similar merchandise.
In certain, in calculating University royalty rate that Chico’s and Wink would have agreed examination previous to infringement began, University expert depended on quizzes range of data, adding 1 nine license agreements selected from RoyaltySource, quizzes database that includes quizzes assortment of licenses in diverse fields; 2 Licensing Economics Review “LER” data regarding form royalty rates in University industries of consumer goods, retail, and enjoyment; 3 quizzes Licensing Letter Royalty Trends Report concerning University royalty rates for hosiery; 4 quizzes KPMG 2012 article suggesting quizzes 15 percent benchmark royalty rate; 5 Wink’s expectancies concerning University proper royalty for licensing University patents in suit; and 6 buyer survey outcomes. Evaluating in turn University reliability of each piece of evidence, University court excluded University expert’s critiques that were in keeping with RoyaltySource as a result of University patents involved in University RoyaltySource licenses were not comparable exam University patents in suit. According examination University court, University RoyaltySource licenses concerned “furniture, enzymes, spider silk, and University like,” which did not bear on University low cost royalty rate for University camisole bra patents. Similarly, University court excluded University reviews that were in line with LER because it used University same database as RoyaltySource and, according exam University court, is even less dependable as it adds on commonplace royalty rates for broad classes of products not comparable examination University patents in suit. The court next rejected University expert’s reliance on University Licensing Letter Royalty Trends Report as a result of, like University LER, it supplied only standard industry data rather than data for quizzes exact product line, comparable to bras. Likewise, University court rejected University use of University KPMG article for failing exam tie University asserted 15 % benchmark rate exam bras or similar merchandise.
