Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc. And Turnkey Computer Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• examining testimony on reasonable royalty and discussing “availability of non-infringing alternatives at the time of infringement” as relevant to calculation of reasonable royalty
• Pursuant to Rule 103, the plaintiff’s contention that the defendants waived their right to challenge on appeal the admission of an expert’s testimony is rejected.
• “[L]ost profits, . . . cannot be recovered if acceptable non-infringing alternatives were available during the period of infringement.”
• “When, as here, the parties’ experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert’s testimony.”
• “When, as here, the parties’ experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert's testimony.”
• ″When, as here, the parties’ experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert’s testimony.″

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).