motion to exclude expert testimony

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intel Corp. v. Future Link Systems, LLC, Civil Action No. 14-377-LPS (D.Del. June 1, 2017), the Court denied (1) the motion of Plaintiff Intel Corporation to exclude royalty opinions of Defendant Future Link Systems, LLC’s damages experts, and (2) the motion of Defendant Future Link Systems, LLC to preclude the expert testimony of the damages expert of Plaintiff Intel Corporation. Both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motions attacked the apportionment methodology of the opposing damages expert and, thus, claimed the opinions were unreliable. Id. at * 2-10. In both instances, the Court found the experts’ methodology sufficiently reliable and found that questions about fact comparability are best left for cross-examination during trial. Id.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Insight Equity d/b/a Vision-Ease Lens Worldwide v. Transitions Optical, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-635-RGA (D.Del. May 9, 2017), the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Defendant’s expert which defined the relevant market for purposes of the antitrust claims.

Defendant’s expert defined the relevant market in the case to include both photochromic and clear lenses and used two econometric tests – cross-price elasticity of demand and co-price movement – to support her market definition. Id. at * 9. Plaintiff’s motion did not challenge the methodological soundness of cross-price elasticity and co-price movement; rather, it challenged the appropriateness of those tests under the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. at *12. In other words, Plaintiff’s motion challenged the “fit” of the expert’s use of cross-price elasticity of demand and co-price movement given the facts and circumstances of this case. Id.

Ultimately, with the exception of not allowing Defendant’s expert to rely on the co-price movement that she attributed to common components of clear and photochromic lenses, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s challenge and permitted Defendant’s expert to testify on co-price movement and cross-price elasticity of demand in giving her expert opinion on the relevant market for purposes of the antitrust claims. Id. at *14-16.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

The general takeaway is that an expert’s testimony must comply with the three requirements set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993): (1) qualification; (2) reliability, and (3) fit. The Court has a gatekeeping role in assessing whether the proffered testimony complies with the Daubert requirements. However, Courts tend to interpret the qualification, reliability and fit requirements of Daubert liberally when evaluating whether to exclude proffered expert testimony.

By Memorandum Order entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Vehicle IP, LLC v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-503-SLR (D.Del., September 9, 2013), the Court granted Plaintiff Vehicle IP, LLC’s (“Vehicle IP”) motion to exclude Defendant Werner Enterprises, Inc.’s (“Werner”) invalidity contentions conerning the systems and methods that Werner used prior to the issue date of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,694,322 (“the ‘322 patent”).  The Court found that Werner’s untimely assertion of its theory of invalidity based on the pre-1995 system was prejudicial to Vehicle IP.  Id. at *5.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-157-RGA (D.Del., March 7, 2013), the Court granted in part the Daubert motion of defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. to exclude the proposed testimony of plaintiff’s expert on direct infringement and secondary considerations. Specifically, the Court excluded plaintiff expert’s conclusions about whether and how particular customers actually used the accused products and five of six of his opinions about secondary considerations of non-obviousness finding such conclusions and opinions not reliable because they were not the product of the expert’s scientific or call center expertise or his direct knowledge. Id. at 3-7.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-610-RGA (D.Del., February 21, 2013), the Court granted the Daubert motion of defendant Intel Corporation seeking to exclude the proposed testimony of the expert witness on damages for plaintiff AVM Technologies, LLC. The Court found that such proposed testimony, which was based on the premise that "a reasonable royalty can be established by one litigation settlement agreement involving a different patent", is not reliable. Id. at 1. The Court also excluded most of plaintiff’s proposed inventor testimony concerning damages concluding that it was untimely disclosed and unreliable expert testimony. Id. at 3.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.