Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
March 12, 2019, Decided; March 13, 2019, Filed
Civil Action No. 15-542-JFB-SRF; Civil Action No. 15-543-JFB-SRF; Civil Action No. 15-544-JFB-SRF; Civil Action No. 15-545-JFB-SRF; Civil Action No. 15-546-JFB-SRF; Civil Action No. 15-547-JFB-SRF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the following motions: defendant Apple Inc.'s [*6] ("Apple") motion (D.I. 275)1 and the joint motion by defendants in the above captioned related cases ("the defendants")(D.I. 278)2 to preclude testimony of Dr. Jonathan D. Putnam pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702; the defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Todor Cooklev under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403 (D.I. 280);3 and plaintiff Evolved Wireless LLC's ("Evolved") motion to preclude the defendants' experts Ms. Shirley Webster, Dr. Michael Walker, Dr. Vernon Palmer, and Dr. Harry Bims) (D.I. 283).
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court explained that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 creates "a gatekeeping role for the [trial] judge" in order to "ensur[e] that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." In general, the Federal Circuit applies the law of the otherwise applicable regional circuit to issues not unique to patent law, including the admissibility [*7] of expert testimony. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Whether proffered evidence is admissible at trial is a procedural issue not unique to patent law, and we therefore review the district court's decision to admit expert testimony under the law of the regional circuit").
The rule requires that expert testimony "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). Expert testimony is admissible only if "the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data," "the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods," and "the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702(b)—(d). The Third Circuit explains: "Rule 702 embodies a trilogy of restrictions on expert testimony: qualification, reliability and fit." Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir. 2003). Qualification refers to the requirement that the witness possess specialized expertise and the Third Circuit "interpret[s] this requirement liberally, holding that 'a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert.'" Schneider, 320 F.3d at 404 (quoting In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 742 (3rd Cir. 1994)). "Secondly, the testimony must be reliable; it 'must be based on the 'methods and procedures of science' rather than on 'subjective belief or unsupported speculation" and "the expert must have 'good grounds' [*8] for his or her belief." Id. (quoting In re Paoli, 35 F.3d at 742. Finally, Rule 702 requires that the expert testimony must fit the issues in the case. Id. "In other words, the expert's testimony must be relevant for the purposes of the case and must assist the trier of fact." Id. (noting that Rule 702's "helpfulness" standard requires a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility).
An expert's opinion on a legal conclusion "is neither necessary nor controlling." See High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Avia Grp. Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988), abrogated on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). That said, an expert's opinion may be relevant to the factual aspects of the analysis leading to that legal conclusion. Id. When an expert's methodology is sound, and the evidence relied upon is sufficiently related to the case at hand, disputes about the degree of relevance or accuracy (above this minimum threshold) may go to the testimony's weight, but not its admissibility." i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff'd, 564 U.S. 91, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 180 L. Ed. 2d 131 (2011).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40169 *; 2019 WL 1178517
EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant.EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERJCA, INC., Defendants.EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LENOVO GROUP LTD., LENOVO UNITED STATES) INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, Defendants.EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants.EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ZTE (USA) INC., Defendant.EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICROSOFT MOBILE OY and NOKIA INC., Defendants.
Prior History: Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32794 (D. Del., Mar. 15, 2016)
defendants', patented, reliable, royalty, contends, damages, cross-examination, license, expert testimony, infringement, obligations, products, testing, patents-in-suit, calculation, unreliable, negotiation, features, appears, asserts, argues