Split Federal Circuit Decision Emphasizes Need For Skilled Counsel

Complex damages analyses require skilled professionals who understand the law and facts of each case to navigate to success. The Federal Circuit's recent en banc ruling in EcoFactor v. Google reiterates that point. The majority opinion does not clarify damages jurisprudence, instead, as highlighted by the dissent, it will exacerbate confusion about damages to the unprepared. Counsel and experts who have been carefully monitoring the changing tide in damages law over the last 10 years can guard against this confusion and find ways through the treacherous waters.

The full court reversed its own three-judge panel and ordered a new trial, after vacating Google's $20M loss in the Western District of Texas. The court based its decision on a deficient expert opinion and unarticulated rationale in the denial of a Daubert challenge. The decision did not clarify or streamline damages analyses or the standard for determining sufficiency of expert opinions. In fact, upon a