The primary focus in this case is on whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing EcoFactor's damages expert to testify based on insufficient facts or data regarding prior lump-sum licenses, which the expert argued demonstrated an established per-unit royalty rate. The majority opinion reverses the district court's denial of Google's motion for a new trial on damages, finding the expert's testimony unreliable, while reinstating portions of a prior panel opinion affirming the denial of non-infringement and summary judgment motions. Concurring and dissenting opinions highlight disagreements on whether the record evidence supports the expert's reliance on the prior licenses and whether the district court's actions constituted an abuse of discretion.
