The 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.