1. “Whether the ‘book of wisdom’ permits a party seeking damages for patent infringement to rely on an unforeseeable stock price six years after the hypothetical negotiation date to grossly inflate the royalty rate, and to ignore an actual stock valuation that existed at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, which would have resulted in a much lower royalty rate.” 2. “Whether apportionment can be achieved through a license agreement where a damages expert relies solely on out-of-court, conclusory conversations with employees who apparently said, without personal knowledge or any investigation, that the asserted patents provided all the value of the license agreement, and where the expert declined to consider that the agreement covered other patents, patent applications, and institutional ‘know-how’ that the plaintiffs’ own witnesses admitted were commercially valuable.”
