EDTX denies Daubert motions involving apportionment, entire market value rule, license agreements, and patent valuations
The Eastern District of Texas, in Core Wireless Licensing SARL v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, Case No. 2-14-cv-00911 (Judge Payne) (March 19, 2016), addressed motions filed by both parties seeking to exclude the other party’s damages expert’s opinions and testimony. LG, the alleged infringer, filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Core’s damages expert, Dr. Stephen Magee, on Daubert and untimeliness grounds. Similarly, Core, the patent owner, sought to exclude the opinions of LG’s damages expert, Dr. Thomas Vander Veen, on the same grounds. The court concluded that both experts’ opinions were reliable under FRE 702, and thus denied both parties’ Daubert motions. The court also concluded that the parties’ late disclosures were harmless and denied the parties’ motions to exclude the adverse party’s supplemental report for untimeliness.
The District of Delaware, in M2M Sols. LLC v. Enfora, Inc., Case No. 12-32-RGA (Judge Andrews) (March 9, 2016), considered, in part, plaintiff's Daubert motion and defendants' summary judgment motion (MSJ) on damages issues. The court granted plaintiff's Daubert motion, and granted in-part and denied in part defendants' MSJ.
The Eastern District of Texas, in Metaswitch Networks Ltd. v. Genband US LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00744 (Judge Payne) (March 5, 2016), addressed defendant Genband's Daubert motion seeking to strike plaintiff's expert Mr. Sims’ opinions relating to apportionment, royalty base calculation, and the application of the "analytical approach." The court concluded that Mr. Sims' opinions were reliable under FRE 702 and thus, denied Genband's Daubert motion.
The Eastern District of Texas, in Metaswitch Networks Ltd. V. Genband US LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00744 (Judge Payne) (March 7, 2015), addressed a number of issues in a FRAND case involving an IETF standard. Specifically, defendant moved under Daubert to exclude certain opinions of plaintiff’s damages expert Matthew R. Lynde. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion.
District of Delaware allows damages experts to rely on distributor agreements, cross licenses and collaboration agreements as relevant comparable agreements
The District of Delaware, in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, et al., 14-1317 (Judge Robinson) (February 18, 2016), considered the parties’ respective Daubert motions relating to the damages experts. Both experts agreed that there were no comparable bare license agreements. (slip op. at 5). In an effort to base their opinions on “some modicum of real world data,” Plaintiff’s expert relied on distributor fees as comparable, while Defendant’s expert relied on cross-license agreements and collaboration agreements as comparable. (Id.) The Court determined that both experts “adequately explained in their reports the relevance of their respective data vis a vis the various Georgia-Pacific factors.” (Id.) The Court, however, excluded from Defendant’s expert’s report an acquisition agreement and a settlement agreement because they were “business arrangements . . . too far afield from a bare patent license to be relevant comparables.” (Id.)
The Southern District of New York, in Adrea, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., et al., 13 Civ. 4137 (Judge Rakoff) (February 24, 2016), ordered a new trial on damages. At trial, the jury found that Defendants infringed two of the three asserted patents, and awarded Plaintiff $1.33 million in lump sum, compensatory damages. After trial, the Court found that one of the two patents was invalid. Since the jury did not allocate its damages award between the two patents, the Court requested letter briefing from the parties on how to allocate the damages award and whether a new trial on damages was necessary. (slip op. at 1 – 2).
The Western District of Michigan, in Magna Elec., Inc. v. TRW Auto. Holdings Corp., et al., 1:12-cv-654 (Judge Maloney) (December 31, 2015), denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, allowing Plaintiff’s accelerated market entry theory and its claim for future damages to proceed to the jury.
Plaintiff sought damages from Defendants’ sales of certain products from 2013 to 2023. At least a portion of the damages Plaintiff sought were post-expiration of the patent. Relying on Kimble v. Marvel Entm’t, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401 (2015), Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s claim for post-expiration damages, in the form of lost profits, was barred.
The Middle District of Florida, in StoneEagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:13-cv-02240 (Judge Hernandez) (June 19, 2015), allowed the plaintiff’s damages expert (Weston Anson) to offer a theory based on the “market approach” and him to testify on the technical comparability of an allegedly comparable license agreement. The court reasoned that the defendants could challenge the market approach and the expert’s qualifications on cross examination.
The District of Nebraska, in Prism Techs, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, Case No. 8:12CV123 (Judge Lyle Strom) (December 18, 2015), granted Plaintiff Prism’s motion for pre- and post-judgment interest and denied its motion for an accounting and ongoing royalty.
C.D. Cal. excludes do-over damages opinions for failure to apportion and allows second do-over if case proceeds to damages phase
The Central District of California, in Enovsys LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., Case No. 11-5210 SS (Judge Suzanne H. Segal) (August 10, 2015), granted Defendant AT&T’s motion to exclude the supplemental opinions of Plaintiff Enovsys’ damages expert. The Court also bifurcated the trial into liability and damages phases, and allowed for a second supplemental damages opinion in the event the case proceeded to the damages phase.
In June 2015, the Court granted AT&T’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Enovsys’ damages expert, Russell Parr because Mr. Parr’s “did not sufficiently tie damages to the ‘limited features’ of the patented invention.” (slip op. at 3). The Court allowed Enovsys a do-over. AT&T took the position that the do-over report suffered from the same defect as the original report – the damages calculations were not tied to the value of the patented invention.