His process control experience includes the manufacture, application, and surface finishing of magnetic computer memory disk coatings. He was responsible for projects involving the design and installation of manufacturing facilities for various paper coatings, adhesives, polymers (suspension and solution) and the development of polymers used in the production of copy machine toners. Stiles is a Chemical Engineer with twenty six years of industry, research & development, production, process control, and management experience. DroneBase provides unmanned drone services (e.g., aerial surveillance and mapping) nationwide.Mr. Tamanaha, a minority owner of DroneBase, claimed his ownership share had been improperly diluted in early financing by the company. A key issue was the value of the company as of May 2019. Plaintiff’s valuation expert used the market approach to conclude the value of DroneBase was $139 million. Neches used the income approach to conclude the value of DroneBase was $20.3 million. Result: the Arbitrator rejected Plaintiff’s valuation and found the testimony of Mr. Neches testified an expert in United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada in this bankruptcy matter on behalf of a creditor regarding how much the debtor owed on a note issued by the creditor. The key issue was whether certain transactions among the loan funders should be considered as payback of principal, reducing the loan balance, or as substitutions of lenders, maintaining the prior loan balance. Neches testified that a substitution of lenders was shown by the time proximity between the repayment of principal to one individual lender and the receipt of additional loan proceeds from another individual lender. Neches’ conclusion and calculation of the resulting loan balance. On appeal, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada affirmed the Judgment. Neches testified as an expert in United States District Court, Central District of California on behalf of plaintiff in this patent infringement case. Linco sold online photo studio products, mostly in kits, that incorporated as a component a lamp holder protected by a design patent assigned to Linco. Top Lighting sold competing kits containing a light holder Linco claimed infringed its patented product.
#Calex engineering trial#
Neches’ analysis and trial testimony were his calculations of Linco’s lost kit sales and the portion of Linco’s lost profit attributable to the infringed lamp holder. Result: the jury found Linco’s patent was valid and willfully infringed, and they awarded lost profit of $138,363 – the exact amount to which Mr. Neches testified as an expert in AAA arbitration on behalf of defendant in this breach of contract and fraud case. IAG and NPC, investment companies, had numerous inter-company transactions. IAG claimed it had lost approximately $7 million more than it had invested through NPC. Neches was retained to determine whether IAG had invested more in NPC than it received back, and if so, how much.
0 kommentar(er)
