Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division

October 25, 2018, Decided; October 25, 2018, Filed

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-CV-00388-RWS

Opinion

(LEAD)

ORDER

On October 12, 2018, the Court considered [*3]  Plaintiff's Sealed Motion to Strike Portions of the Becker Expert Report Regarding Alternate Hypothetical Negotiation Date (Docket No. 24). The Court deferred ruling on the motion (Docket No. 201 at 13-15) until it heard further argument from the parties at the Final Pretrial Conference.

At the Final Pretrial Conference, the parties did not dispute that the SGH D820 and SGH T809 products have never been asserted in Papst's infringement contentions throughout this litigation. 10/16/18 Hr'g Tr. at 59: 22-25; 63:17-21. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion (Docket No. 24). Any reference to an alternate hypothetical negotiation date based on the SGH D820 or SGH T809 products in Dr. Becker's expert report shall be stricken.

Moreover, to the extent the parties intend to present a letter from Papst to Samsung Electronics in 2010 in which the SGH D820 product is identified as an infringing product as evidence of notice in support of willfulness, any prejudice to Samsung is mitigated by the bifurcation of willfulness into a second phase of trial.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of October, 2018.

/s/ Robert W. Schroeder III

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231698 *

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO., KG, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, et al., Defendants.

Prior History: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231695 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 25, 2018)

CORE TERMS

Hypothetical, infringement, Negotiation