Infotech Consulting’s Expert Testimony and Analysis Helps Blue Ox Avoid $5.7 million Patent Infringement Claim

The Infotech Consulting team, led by Expert Economist Dr. Rob Kneuper, provided econometric analysis and expert testimony (both at deposition and trial) to assess the damage claims brought against Blue Ox, one of the largest towing systems companies in the United States. Danko Manufacturing sued Blue Ox (and related corporate entities) in the U.S District Court for the District of Nebraska, claiming patent infringement relating to the braking systems used for vehicles being towed by an RV. 

In particular, Danko alleged that Blue Ox’s Patriot 3 infringed the “Brake Lock Detection System for Towed Vehicles,” also known as Patent ‘870. Blue Ox counterclaimed and argued that the Patent was unenforceable and invalid to be infringed. Danko presented expert testimony claiming damages relating to lost sales from the alleged patent infringement of approximately $5.7 million. 

Dr. Kneuper and the Infotech Consulting team evaluated the damages methodology and calculations made by Danko’s expert and identified numerous deficiencies in his analysis. Dr. Kneuper’s evaluation revealed the damage analysis by Danko’s expert was “fundamentally flawed” and had “no factual support.” The case went to trial in the fall of 2021, and Judge Brian C. Buescher ultimately ruled in favor of Blue Ox, citing favorably to Dr. Kneuper’s trial testimony, and ultimately finding no proof of both infringement and damages.  The case was subsequently settled.  

In reflecting on his work on the Blue Ox case, Dr. Kneuper stated, “It’s deeply satisfying to not only have achieved the right result at trial, but it was a great experience for me personally to work with the fine attorneys at Carlton Fields and McGrath North, as well as the awesome Infotech Consulting trial support team!” 

Petroleum Marketing Practices Act  – Violation Damages Proved Unreliable

Petroleum Marketing Practices Act – Violation Damages Proved Unreliable

Infotech Consulting’s Expert Economist Dr. Rob Kneuper was hired by counsel for the Defendant, Southeast Petro, a gasoline distributor for Motiva Enterprises, a Shell affiliate, to evaluate the damages methodology and estimates produced by the Plaintiff’s expert. Plaintiff LLB Convenience and Gas, Inc. brought suit against Southeast Petro in the U.S. District for the Middle District of Florida, claiming a violation of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and a breach of contract. 

Dr. Kneuper and the Infotech Consulting team reviewed the damages analysis put forth and conducted their own detailed econometric analyses using the Plaintiff’s financials. Through a report and deposition in fall 2019 and testimony at trial in February 2020, Dr. Kneuper identified substantial flaws in the work of the Plaintiff’s expert. In June 2020, District Court Judge Paul G. Byron ruled in favor of Southeast Petro, echoing Dr. Kneuper’s findings that the Plaintiff’s expert’s methodology was unreliable. 

LLB Convenience & Gas, Inc. v. Southeast Petro Distributors, Inc., In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No.: 6:18-cv-00914-PGBTBS

Petroleum Marketing Practices Act – Violation Damages Proved Unreliable

Infotech Consulting’s Expert Economist Dr. Rob Kneuper was hired by counsel for the Defendant, Southeast Petro, a gasoline distributor for Motiva Enterprises, a Shell affiliate, to evaluate the damages methodology and estimates produced by the Plaintiff’s expert. Plaintiff LLB Convenience and Gas, Inc. brought suit against Southeast Petro in the U.S. District for the Middle District of Florida, claiming a violation of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and a breach of contract. 

Dr. Kneuper and the Infotech Consulting team reviewed the damages analysis put forth and conducted their own detailed econometric analyses using the Plaintiff’s financials. Through a report and deposition in fall 2019 and testimony at trial in February 2020, Dr. Kneuper identified substantial flaws in the work of the Plaintiff’s expert. In June 2020, District Court Judge Paul G. Byron ruled in favor of Southeast Petro, echoing Dr. Kneuper’s findings that the Plaintiff’s expert’s methodology was unreliable. 

LLB Convenience & Gas, Inc. v. Southeast Petro Distributors, Inc., In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case No.: 6:18-cv-00914-PGBTBS

Falsely Claimed Sales Streak Broken After Infotech Consulting Analysis

In a breach of contract suit filed by authorized dealers of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), dealers alleged that FCA falsified sales figures to artificially inflate the value of the company’s shares with the purpose of supporting their claim of unbroken year-to-year sales streak.  FCA allegedly offered discriminatory allocations to dealers in return for their agreements to report unsold vehicles as sold to help inflate monthly sales figures. This action in essence “stacked the deck” against plaintiff dealers. The false sales figures were used to subsidize dealers that were in competition with plaintiffs. Infotech Consulting was hired by plaintiffs to perform a damages analysis to determine whether FCA’s system of allocation unfairly discriminated against plaintiffs in favor of competitor dealers, and, if so, the loss of sales resulting from this behavior. Infotech Consulting obtained data from 62 FCA dealers on vehicle sales, planning potential, discretionary allocation, and regular allocation. Our expert analysis determined that there was, in fact, discrimination that resulted in lost sales and commensurate lost profits to select FCA dealers. With help from Infotech Consulting, plaintiffs were able to secure a favorable undisclosed settlement.

Napleton’s Arlington Heights Motors, Inc., et al. v. FCA US, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-0403 (US District Court for the N.D. of Illinois)

Dentists Get $80M From Supply Cos. To End Collusion Case

Dentists Get $80M From Supply Cos. To End Collusion Case

The country’s biggest dental supply distributors reached an $80 million settlement agreement with dentists and dental laboratories in a proposed class action case.  Distributors Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Cos. Inc. and Benco Dental Supply Co. Inc. were accused of artificially inflating prices on dental supplies and equipment.  Products at issue included supplies such as adhesives, implants, tooth brushes, pins and posts all the way to equipment such as imaging devices and dental chairs. Although there are hundreds of distributors and manufacturers of dental supplies and equipment, Defendants controlled approximately 80% of the market share.

Info tech, Inc was hired to calculate damages to plaintiffs due to the alleged conspiratorial conduct.  In formalizing a damage analysis, Infotech Consulting scrutinized over 400 million transactions that occurred between January 2009 and March 2016.  After a thorough econometric analysis, Dr. McClave opined that prices were in fact elevated during the conspiracy period. Minutes before a scheduled Daubert hearing, defendants agreed to a settlement figure bringing the case to closure.