In a patent infringement case before an Illinois federal judge, a motion to exclude the testimony of a damages expert was denied. The case, Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, involved Sloan Valve alleging that Zurn Industries infringed its patent on flush toilet designs that allow users to adjust water volume by changing the handle’s direction. Zurn moved to strike the testimony of Sloan’s damages expert, Mr. Bero, arguing that his methodology was unreliable under the Daubert standard, which requires expert testimony to be based on sound, reliable methods supported by sufficient facts and data.
Bero’s analysis calculated Zurn’s potential profits from Sloan’s lost sales, focusing on the market value of the valve assembly. Zurn contended that Bero failed to tailor his analysis to the specific patented parts, improperly included profits from related products, and used unverified methods for royalty calculations. However, the court found Bero’s methodology sufficiently reliable, noting that it adhered to established financial analysis practices and was supported by relevant data. The judge emphasized that Daubert requires a rigorous but not overly restrictive review, and Bero’s approach met the threshold for admissibility, allowing his testimony to proceed to trial.
This ruling underscores the court’s gatekeeping role under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, balancing the need for reliable expert testimony with the flexibility to allow well-reasoned financial analyses in patent disputes. For further details, see the Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries case documentation.