Trademark Research Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Maxwell Online, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiff could not “extrapolate seven years of lost profits from four months” of sales of a new product
• holding that plaintiffs claims for lost profits lacked the requisite certainty as the damages were based upon speculation, extrapolation of years of profits from several months of actual profits, and plaintiffs hope that its market share would increase
• stating that the defendant’s aware ness of the plaintiffs immense down-side risk militates against the conclusion that the defendant would have assumed it
• explaining that “[i]f it could be demonstrated that the verdict included any of [plaintiffs] unsub stantiated damages claims, the award would be by definition excessive,” and re-mittitur would be appropriate
• noting that “[i]f it could be demonstrated that the verdict included any of [the plaintiff’s] unsubstantiated damages claims, the award would be by definition excessive,” warranting remittitur
• finding that “[t]he record contains no specific evidence that, at the time of contracting, [defendant] accepted liability for nine years of lost profits. No evidence was offered that the parties ever discussed lost profits liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).