CPA Expert Witness: Novel Damage Analysis Unreliable

The US District Court South Carolina in The Turfgrass Group Inc. v. Carolina Fresh Farms, Civil Action No. 5:10-cv-00849-JMC March 14, 2013, dealt with a CPA expert using a “novel” damage analysis in a patent case.

The court rejected a disgorgement of profits theory stating:

Here, Davis renders his opinion that Plaintiffs are entitled to damages measured as a royalty rate equal to fifty-three percent (53%) of the retail selling price of the TifBlair grass for a total monetary damages amount of $2,486,125.  In determining this damage amount, Davis noted that the prior agreement between the parties established a royalty rate for TifBlair at seven percent (7%). However, Davis opined that this established rate would not be applicable in this case because the parties were no longer operating pursuant to a negotiated agreement, and instead, opined that Carolina Fresh’s alleged infringement resulted in a “compulsory” or “forced” licensing arrangement which justified a royalty adjustment. In his deposition, Davis testified that his opinion on the royalty adjustment was based on the factors established in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 243 F. Supp. 500 (S.D.N.Y 1965). However, Davis also testified that he added an additional factor in his royalty rate determination — the consideration of a rate to account for the disgorgement of the infringer’s profits. Davis acknowledged that the addition of this factor had no basis in established authority or methodology and was merely his subjective opinion. Additionally, Davis’s opinion is predominantly based on a study of a fictional centipede sod farm conducted by Louisiana State University which does not include any adjustments for relevant economic circumstances. In his deposition, Davis acknowledged that he had not reviewed any data concerning Carolina Fresh’s operations and had not accounted for any economic circumstances relevant to centipede sod production and sales during the years in which he calculated his projections. Based on this record, the court finds this one of the rare circumstances in which the proffered opinion is so flawed as to provide little help to the trier of fact. The record reflects that Davis’s opinion is not based on accepted methodology, has not been subjected to peer review or publication, and has not been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. Furthermore, Davis’s opinion has little or no basis in the actual facts of this case. Accordingly, the court finds his opinion unreliable and, therefore excluded.