By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Alarm.com, Inc. et al. v. Securenet Technologies LLC, Civil Action No. 15-807-RGA (D.Del. January 8, 2019), the Court granted-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Brett Reed.

With respect to Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion, Defendant argued that the Court should exclude the entirety of Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion because (1) there was a defect in his analysis of the manufacturing and marketing prong of Panduit; or (2) it contains an opinion as to Plaintiff Alarm.com’s entitlement to its lost profits prior to the date from which Plaintiff Alarm.com is legally entitled to claim lost profits. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs responded that Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion should not be excluded because (1) the challenge to the Panduit analysis done by Mr. Reed goes to the weight of the evidence; and (2) Mr. Reed’s opinion merely addresses alternative lost profits scenarios without purporting to determine the date from which Plaintiff Alarm.com is legally entitled to claim lost profits. Id.

After considering the arguments, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that any defect in Mr. Reed’s Panduit analysis goes to the weight and credibility of his opinion instead of its admissibility and, thus, those opinions were not excluded. Id. The Court agreed with Defendants that, to the extent Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion provides opinions that are inconsistent with the starting date of March 8, 2017 for lost profits recovery, those opinions were excluded. Id. at *4.

The Court goes on in the opinion to exclude other opinions of Mr. Reed as to the failure of others, copying, and praise by others and refuses to exclude his opinion on commercial success. Id. at *4-10.

Copies of the Memorandum and Opinion are attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Cordis Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-315-SLR (D.Del., March 13, 2012), the Court denied the motion of defendant Cordis Corporation requesting the Court to disturb the jury verdict and grant Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. In support of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Cordis alleged that the jury’s verdict – which the parties agreed included an award to Boston Scientific of lost profits based on the normal profit margin per unit of sales of the product that allegedly declined in sales because of the infringing products – was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 7. Cordis also alleged that Boston Scientific had not proven that the introduction of the products found to infringe the patent at issue was the “but-for cause” of the decline of sales of the Cordis product. Id.

Upon evaluation of the evidence presented during trial, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of lost profits in the case and denied Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 25. A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.