Ecofactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

Opinion

Case: 23-1101 Document: 165 Page: 1 Filed: 12/04/2024

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.

______________________

Case: 23-1101 Document: 165 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2024

2 ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.1

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

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

December 4, 2024 Date

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