TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Props. Co.
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
July 13, 2012, Decided; July 13, 2012, Filed
Civil Case No. 10-4413 (FSH) (PS)
HOCHBERG, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motions to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Plaintiff's Experts Dr. Edward Funk and Dr. Bradley N. Reiff. Defendants 3M Innovative Properties Company and 3M Company ("Defendants" or "3M") contend that Dr. Funk, [*2] TransWeb's invalidity expert, improperly relied on a recreation of the prior art that was created based on uncorroborated evidence and under conditions Dr. Funk knew nothing about. 3M contends that Dr. Reiff's opinions on antitrust should be excluded because they are not based on econometric analysis. The Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and heard oral argument at a hearing on May 23, 2012.
This case concerns specialty filtration media—specifically, plasma-fluorinated non-woven polymeric web—used in respirators for environments containing oily aerosols. 3M alleges TransWeb infringes two of its patents relating to this filtration material: U.S. Patent No. 6,397,458 (the "'458 patent"), which claims a method for making the filtration material, and U.S. Patent No. 6,808,551 (the "'551 patent"), which is directed to methods of using the filtration material. 3M first brought suit against TransWeb for infringement in the District of Minnesota in May 2010. That court lacked personal jurisdiction over TransWeb. On August 27, 2010, TransWeb filed this suit seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity, inequitable conduct, and non-infringement as well as antitrust [*3] claims. 3M counterclaimed for infringement. Two of TransWeb's declaratory judgment claims are relevant to the present motions. First, it contends that 3M's patents are invalid because TransWeb created and sold its filtration material before 3M, and that material anticipates and/or renders obvious the claims asserted by 3M. Second, TransWeb contends 3M's patent issued only after 3M made intentionally misleading statements to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as to whether TransWeb's invention had been publicly available, and that 3M's receipt and enforcement of the patent constitute antitrust violations.
On February 24, 2012, 3M filed motions to exclude the testimony of Drs. Funk and Reiff.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.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97512 *
TRANSWEB, LLC, Plaintiff, v. 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY and 3M COMPANY, Defendants.
Notice: NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Subsequent History: Motion denied by, Costs and fees proceeding at, Application granted by TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Props. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54919 (D.N.J., Apr. 21, 2014)
Prior History: TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Props. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97515 (D.N.J., July 13, 2012)
fluorination, patent, respirators, recreations, prior art, contends, media, web, filtration, corroboration, products, filter, conditions, polymeric, manufacturer, reliability, parameters, expert testimony, assumptions, invalidity, antitrust, samples, patent application, interchangeability, infringement, econometric, deposited, non-polymeric, fiberglass, documents