In the patent infringement case Bausch & Lomb v. SBH Holdings LLC, B&L claimed lost profits due to SBH's sale of infringing nutritional supplements. SBH challenged B&L's damages claim, arguing that the technical expert's assertion of no available non-infringing alternatives was insufficient. Despite SBH's attempt to dismiss B&L's claims via a Daubert motion, the court denied the motion, indicating that B&L's reliance on expert opinions was adequate for the jury to consider. This decision underscores the complexities and legal dynamics surrounding lost profits in patent cases.
The court found sufficient support in Bausch & Lomb's presentation, allowing their lost profits damages claim to proceed despite the accused infringer's challenges.
The flexibility of the law was evident when the court ruled that a singular paragraph from the technical expert was enough to deny SBH's Daubert motion.
Collection
[
|
...
]