Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 23-1101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024)

See Opinion Disposition stated in the opinion
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 23-1101
Decided
December 4, 2024
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Precedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

ECOFACTOR, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant-Appellant

2023-1101

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00075-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

REZA MIRZAIE, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, for EcoFactor, Inc. Also represented by KRISTOPHER DAVIS, MARC A. FENSTER, MINNA JAY, BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, JAMES PICKENS.

GINGER ANDERS, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, DC, for Google LLC. Also represented by VINCENT LING, Los Angeles, CA; EVAN JENNINGS MANN, San Francisco, CA; STEPHANIE JILL GOLDBERG, KRISTIN ELIZABETH HUCEK, LEO L. LAM, ROBERT ADAM LAURIDSEN, EUGENE M. PAIGE, ROBERT A. VAN NEST, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA.

22 ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, REYNA,

TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit

Judges.1

O R D E R

The court granted rehearing en banc “limited to addressing the district court’s adherence to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), in its allowance of testimony from EcoFactor’s damages expert assigning a per-unit royalty rate to the three licenses in evidence in this case.” Google’s argument at pages 41–58 of its brief exceeds the scope of the court’s en banc rehearing, as its footnote 11 all but recognizes. EcoFactor should not address this argument in its response brief.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

December 4, 2024

Date

1 Circuit Judge Newman and Circuit Judge Cunningham did not participate.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 23-1101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024).

Record ID
CAFC-23-1101-20241204
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-23-1101-20241204

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.