Earlier this year, we discussed Judge Gibney’s rulings on motions to strike the testimony of both Dr. Prowse (i.e., damages expert for plaintiff Limelight) & Mr. Meyer (i.e., damages expert for the defendants). On March 23, Judge Gibney granted another motion to strike new damages analysis provided by plaintiff Limelight.
In this new opinion, Judge Gibney recounts the basis for his earlier exclusion of Dr. Prowse’s damages:
With the most recent iteration, it appears Limelight – without benefit of any expert opinion – sought to apply Dr. Prowse’s royalty rate to a different royalty base: namely, defendant Akamai’s “network traffic” revenue. Doing so, presumably, sought to avoid running afoul of Judge Gibney’s guidance to apportion the sales base, and thereby limit damages so as only to include the incremental value of the patent.
With Limelight’s latest effort, Judge Gibney appears to have had enough:
We will continue to follow this case, especially with an eye on the question of how damages might be determined if Limelight wins on liability.