`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC.
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00111
`
`Judge Arthur J. Schwab
`
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NED S. BARNES, CPA
` IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
`
`I, Ned S. Barnes, CPA, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a Managing Director in the Washington, D.C. office of the Berkeley
`
`Research Group (“BRG”), a financial and economic consulting firm. I am a Certified Public
`
`Accountant and a Certified Fraud Examiner. I submitted an expert report in the above-captioned
`
`case (Doc. No. 187), was qualified by this Court as an expert (Doc. No. 347, at 200:12-16), and
`
`testified at trial on April 27 and 28, 2015. The opinions and calculations contained herein are my
`
`own and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`In the verdict form (Doc. No. 371), the jury allocated $3,783,950 in its answer to
`
`Question No. 1, and $4,016,050 in its answer to Question No. 2. If this Court were to award
`
`prejudgment interest for each of these amounts, at what I understand to be the Pennsylvania
`
`statutory rate of six per cent, calculated from the date of the hypothetical negotiation (January
`
`31, 2012) through June 30, 2015 and compounded quarterly, those prejudgment interest amounts
`
`would be as follows:
`
`$ 853,992 for prejudgment interest on $3,783,950
`
`$ 906,374 for prejudgment interest on $4,016,050
`
`{00031215 / }
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 382-1 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`To calculate the lump-sum payment for future sales, Defendants’ damages expert,
`
`Mr. Jarosz, and I both used my projected sales figures from my analysis (Doc. No. 187-8).
`
`Mr. Jarosz confirmed this in his Supplemental Damages Report: “I then applied this rate to Mr.
`
`Barnes’ unit projections for July 2015 through December 2020.” Doc. No. 344 at 4; see also id.
`
`at 5 n.15; and Mr. Jarosz reiterated this in his testimony before the jury. Doc. No. 357, at 72:16-
`
`73:8.
`
`4.
`
`If this Court were to determine that a $5 per unit royalty is appropriate for future
`
`sales, and decided to use the undisputed projected sales figures that I used in my analysis (Doc.
`
`No. 187-8) and testified to at trial, the lump-sum payment for future sales would be $11,185,243.
`
`5.
`
`If this Court were to apply my analysis for future sales, i.e., a $16 per unit royalty
`
`for AR.Drone, AR.Drone 2.0, and Bebop drones, and $6 per unit for the MiniDrones, the lump
`
`sum payment for future sales would be $17,326,867, as indicated in my expert report (Doc. No.
`
`187-8).
`
`6.
`
`If this Court were to apply a royalty rate between $5 per unit and $16 per unit,
`
`then the lump sum payment for future sales falls between $11,185,243 (at $5 per unit) and
`
`$17,326,867 (at $16 and $6 per unit, respectively).
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed this 20th day of May, 2015, in Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________
`Ned S. Barnes, CPA
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`{00031215 / }
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
