these Georgia-Pacific factors, Wagner increased the baseline royalty rate by $2, for a
total of $98.
On appeal, Microsoft ably points out various weaknesses in the damage
calculations by i4i’s expert. At their heart, however, Microsoft’s disagreements are with
Wagner’s conclusions, not his methodology. Daubert and Rule 702 are safeguards
consistently upheld experts’ use of a hypothetical negotiation and Georgia-Pacific
factors for estimating a reasonable royalty. See, e.g., Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,
317 F.3d 1387, 1393 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite Pictures, Inc.,
274 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Wagner’s testimony about the acceptance of the
hypothetical negotiation model among damage experts and economists, combined with
his methodical explication of how he applied the model to the relevant facts, satisfied
Rule 702 and Daubert. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593. Given Wagner’s testimony
about his credentials, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Wagner
qualified to apply the methodology. See Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 249-
50 (5th Cir. 2002). Microsoft’s quarrel with the facts Wagner used go to the weight, not
admissibility, of his opinion.
We further hold that Wagner’s opinion was “based on sufficient facts or data.”
Fed. R. Evid. 702. At trial, Microsoft disputed which facts were relevant for determining
a reasonable royalty rate. In particular, Microsoft focused on the benchmark (XMetaL),
the resulting baseline royalty rate, and i4i’s survey for estimating infringing use.
Regarding the benchmark, Wagner explained that he chose XMetaL because it
was the product Microsoft bought and used before developing its own custom XML