Hampton IP News & Events
You are here: Home »
Ryan Worthen Joins Hampton IP & Economic Consultants, LLC
We are pleased to introduce Ryan Worthen who joined Hampton IP & Economic Consultants, LLC in 2011.
Evanston Insurance Company Retains Scott Hampton
Scott Hampton was retained by Evanston Insurance Co. as a damages expert for MGA Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al., case number 08-cv-00457, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Rimini Street Retains Scott Hampton
Scott Hampton was retained by Rimini Street, Inc. as a damages expert for Oracle USA, Inc., et al. v. Rimini Street, Inc., et al., case number 2:10-cv-0106, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Hamilton Beach Retains Scott Hampton
Scott Hampton was retained by Hamilton Beach as a damages expert for Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., case number 3:11CV345, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Sharp Corporation Retains Scott Hampton
Scott Hampton was retained by Sharp Corporation as a damages expert for Anvik Corporation v. Sharp Corporation, et al., case number 7:07-cv-00825, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Hampton IP Continues Sponsorship of Utah’s IP Summit
In February 2011, Hampton IP sponsored and participated in the Utah Bar Association’s annual IP Summit.
Medicis Pharmaceutical Retains Scott Hampton
Scott Hampton was retained by Medicis Pharmaceutical as a damages expert for Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Acella Pharmaceuticals, LLC, case number 2:10-cv-01780, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
CAFC—The 25% Rule of Thumb is Fundamentally Flawed
On January 4, 2011, the Federal Circuit found the “25% Rule” to be inadmissible as a basis for reasonable royalty damages in its Uniloc USA v. Microsoft opinion.
Posted January 05, 2011 | In Industry News | Permalink
Sharp Corporation Settles Patent Litigation
Scott Hampton was retained by Sharp Corporation as a damages expert for Advanced Technology Incubator, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation, case number 2:07-CV-468, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.
Changes to Rule 26 Make it Easier for Experts and Attorneys to Communicate
According to a publication by the law firm Reed Smith, before December 1, 2010, virtually all communications between an expert witness and counsel were subject to discovery.
Posted December 20, 2010 | In Industry News | Permalink