Trade Secrets and Bubble Gum -- An Expert Issue (Pacer Req'd)
By Press
In The Topps Company, Inc. v. Cadbury Stani SAIC, 2006 WL 176995 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2006), Senior Judge Haight dealt with in limine motions regarding defendant's experts in a trade secrets case between two bubble gum makers.
Defendant sought to offer the testimony of a damages expert who would testify that of the three measures of damages permitted under the New York trade secrets law -- (1) compensation for plaintiff's losses, (2) accounting for defendant's profits, or (3) a reasonable royalty rate -- that the appropriate compensation to plaintiff was a reasonable royalty based on defendant's use of plaintiff's technology.
The court, though, would have none of it holding that an attempt by an expert to define the appropriate measure of damages would invade the province of the court in determining questions of law. Thus, the proposed testimony "impermissibly expresses an opinion on a question of law."
Defendant sought to offer the testimony of a damages expert who would testify that of the three measures of damages permitted under the New York trade secrets law -- (1) compensation for plaintiff's losses, (2) accounting for defendant's profits, or (3) a reasonable royalty rate -- that the appropriate compensation to plaintiff was a reasonable royalty based on defendant's use of plaintiff's technology.
The court, though, would have none of it holding that an attempt by an expert to define the appropriate measure of damages would invade the province of the court in determining questions of law. Thus, the proposed testimony "impermissibly expresses an opinion on a question of law."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home