SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
October 5, 2015, Decided; October 6, 2015, Filed
Case No. 2:14-CV-11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mr. Mills filed by the Defendants Google Inc., et al. ("Mot.," Dkt. No. 202.) The Plaintiff opposes the motion. ("Resp.," Dkt. No. 213.) For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants' motion is GRANTED-IN-PART to the extent specified below and is otherwise DENIED.
"The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by the Federal [*2] Rules of Evidence and the principles laid out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)." Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
An expert witness may provide opinion testimony if "(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702. In other words, "[u]nder [the Federal Rules] and precedent, a district court judge, acting as a gatekeeper, may exclude evidence if it is based upon unreliable principles or methods, or legally insufficient facts and data." Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014), rev'd on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 2015 WL 3687459, at *6 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in part).
"A [district] judge must be cautious not to overstep its gatekeeping role and weigh facts, evaluate the correctness of conclusions, impose its own preferred methodology, or judge credibility, including the credibility of one expert over another," Apple Inc., 757 F.3d at 1314. "Vigorous cross-examination, [*3] presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 596, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993); see also i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 854 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("Daubert and Rule 702 are safeguards against unreliable or irrelevant opinions, not guarantees of correctness."); Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1391-92 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (applying Fifth Circuit law) ("When, as here, the parties' experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert's testimony."); Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2002) ("The trial court's role as gatekeeper [under Daubert] is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.' . . . Thus, while exercising its role as a gate-keeper, a trial court must take care not to transform a Daubert hearing into a trial on the merits," quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee note).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.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135915 *
SimpleAir, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Google Inc., et al. Defendants.
Prior History: SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54264 (E.D. Tex., Apr. 27, 2015)
hypothetical, negotiation, patented, phones, infringement, estimation, patents-in-suit, methodology, invention