Proven Results:
Our Clients’ Success Stories

Overview
Insight Economics experts provided comprehensive economic analysis and expert testimony in a high-profile Delaware federal case between TwinStrand Biosciences, the University of Washington, and Guardant Health. The dispute centered around damages relating to advanced DNA sequencing patents for cancer detection. Insight’s work informed a jury verdict awarding $83.4 million in damages following a five-day trial.

Challenge
The case required rigorous assessment of the economic impact associated with patented DNA sequencing technologies. Insight was tasked with analyzing the commercial value, financial impact, and damages incurred by the asserted patents. The team collaborated with legal counsel to present compelling, data-driven analysis in Federal Court.

Results
Insight Economics delivered expert opinions and clear economic evidence that supported the damages calculation adopted by the jury. Their analysis contributed significantly to the client’s ability to recover substantial compensation in the form of an $83.4 million verdict. The trial outcome demonstrated the value of Insight’s financial models and testimony in complex intellectual property litigation.

Overview
Insight Economics was retained by a seller of cigarillos, Trendsettah (TSI), which brought antitrust and breach of contract claims against its supplier, Swisher. Insight Economics’ analysis was extensive and was relied upon at trial. 

Challenge
Insight Economics developed damages theories related to an evaluation of the alleged antitrust and breach of contract claims. The team developed a potential profitability measure for the alleged damages. The video transcript of Insight Economics’ expert deposition was played at trial along with the cross examination of the expert.

Results
The jury entered a special verdict for damages for both breach of contract/breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in its contractual dealings with TSI and for damages for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act by creating or maintaining and/or attempting to create a monopoly through anticompetitive practices. On remand the district court entered into a judgement in favor of TSI and against Swisher on TSI’s claims for breach of contract for $9.06 million, as determined by the jury verdict. This breach of contract judgment was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, along with relief for defendants from the antitrust claims.

Overview
Insight Economics was retained by Belanger to evaluate damages related to Wash World’s infringement of a patent pertaining to a vehicle spray washer with lighted spray arms. A jury in the district court awarded damages for both lost profits and royalties. After appeal to the Federal Circuit Belanger successfully upheld a lost profits and reasonable royalty award.

Challenge
The dynamics between Wash World and Belanger informed an analysis that considered many factors related to competition and damages. Multiple products were included within the patent infringement damages calculation, requiring careful consideration and due diligence. Insight Economics presented analysis of the Panduit Factors related to lost profits and factors related to a determination of a reasonable royalty.  

Results
Insight Economics’ expert submitted a report to the district court and testified at trial. The jury verdict was in line with the recommendations and were later adjusted for certain products by the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgement of infringement and remanded the damages award to $7.48 million dollars in favor of Belanger.

Overview
Insight Economics has been retained on multiple cases related to the evaluation of a secondary consideration of a patent’s alleged non-obviousness, the commercial success of the patented product that can be attributed to that patent. In the Alcon vs. Padagis case Insight Economics was retained by Padagis to evaluate claims of commercial success related to an ophthalmic drug and a patent.

Challenge
Insight Economics’ expert testified to multiple factors that indicated that Alcon’s expert did not consider the nexus, or the degree of connection between the product’s sales and the claimed benefits of the specific patents at issue versus other factors. Insight Economics’ expert also testified to a blocking patent acting as a deterrent for other market players.

Challenge
The district court judge ruled in favor of Padagis regarding noninfringement. The judge did not clarify whether either experts’ analysis of sales and revenue data was more persuasive, but did state that Alcon failed to establish a nexus between the alleged commercial success of the product and the claimed invention. Additionally, the judge stated that potential competitors facing a blocking patent significantly undercuts Alcon’s claims of commercial success.

Overview
Insight Economics has been retained by generic drug companies looking to introduce new products. Generic companies may need assistance determining if the resources needed to develop a product are outweighed by the profits they could potentially retain.

Challenge
The number of competitors, market size, litigation risk, product type, and patent terms can all play a role in determining the profits the generic company could potentially retain. Literature in the field of generic drug introductions is extensive which allows for detailed financial modeling.  

Results
Insight advised multiple generic companies which ultimately made significant sales in the market. The research in the generic industry was detailed and allowed for a mitigation of risk for the generic drug sales. Eventually, the generic drug companies made significant sales and highly penetrated the market.

Overview
Insight Economics experts were engaged in a California antitrust matter involving L.A. International Corp. and Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., makers of Clear Eyes. The matter focused on claims of preferential pricing and violation of antitrust statutes, with Insight providing economic analysis that supported the jury’s findings for the plaintiffs.

Challenge
Insight was asked to evaluate whether the defendants’ pricing practices resulted in economic harm to the plaintiffs and to quantify related damages. The analysis required application of multiple legal standards, including the Robinson-Patman Act and California Unfair Business Practices law, to provide objective and actionable damage calculations.

Results
Insight supplied detailed damages assessments and presented their findings through expert testimony, assisting the jury in understanding complex market effects and economic injury. The team’s work helped secure a favorable jury verdict under both federal and state law, underpinning the outcome with robust economic analysis.

Overview
Insight Economics evaluated claims regarding a motion to enjoin the authorization of a private label version of a biologic drug. The dispute centered around various arguments including the authorization’s impact on irreparable harm, the balance of hardships, and the public interest.  Insight’s work informed an order by the district court denying a motion for a preliminary injunction and the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit focusing on arguments regarding irreparable harm.

Challenge
The authorization was similar to previous introductions that would potentially allow for the measurement of potential damages and many factors weighed in favor of the authorization. Insight rebutted an expert report, evaluated literature, utilized research databases, and focused on the case specific fact pattern. Insight considered emerging data from third-party sources and the testimony of additional fact witnesses.  

Results
Insight Economics provided opinions that were heavily relied upon in motions in opposition to the preliminary injunction. The district judge denied the injunction, citing a failure to show Plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed. The Federal Circuit judges questioned that calculating any disruption would be too difficult to measure.

Overview
Insight Economics provided opinions in various jurisdictions related to the introduction of a generic sacubitril and valsartan drug which references the branded drug Entresto. The disputes centered around patents and Novartis seeking preliminary injunctions to block MSN from introducing its generic product until certain patent expirations.   

Challenge
Plaintiffs offered opinions regarding various ways in which MSN’s introduction would cause irreparable harm. Insight Economics rebutted the testimony of two experts in the field of economics.  

Results
The Federal Circuit heard an appeal regarding a district court opinion temporarily enjoining MSN and subsequently ordered Novartis to post an unsecured bond in the amount opined on by Insight Economics’ expert. The district judge highlighted various arguments offered by Insight Economics regarding the measurability of any potential harm and agreed that damages experts in the field could make appropriate estimates and adjustments to their models to account for various forecast differences.