United States District Court, D. Delaware
Richard L. Horwitz, Esq., David E. Moore, Esq., Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bryan Wilson, Esq. (argued), Marc D. Peters, Esq., Michael J. Kryston, Esq., Daniel Hubin, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Harold J. McElhinny, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, attorneys for the Plaintiff.
John G. Day, Esq., Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq., Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; John P. Schnurer, Esq., Michael J. Engle, Esq., Ryan B. Hawkins, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA; Ryan McBrayer, Esq. (argued), Jonathan Putman, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, attorneys for the Defendants.
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of James Pampinella. (D.I. 236). The issue has been fully briefed. (D.I. 237, 263, 278). The Court took testimony and held oral argument on January 30, 2015. (D.I. 329). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will exclude Mr. Pampinella's testimony with respect to lost profits and allow his testimony with respect to a reasonable royalty.
Plaintiff Immersion Corporation filed a complaint on March 2, 2012 alleging that HTC Corporation, HTC (B.V.I.) Corporation, HTC America Holdings, Inc., HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 429, 846 ("the '846 patent"), 7, 592, 999 ("the '999 patent"), 7, 969, 288 ("the '288 patent"), 7, 982, 720 ("the '720 patent"), 8, 031, 181 ("the '181 patent"), and 8, 059, 105 ("the '105 patent"). (D.I. 1). The case was stayed on April 12, 2012 pending an International Trade Commission investigation. (D.I. 7). The case was reopened on May 1, 2013 and an amended complaint was filed against HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (D.I. 11). The other defendants were terminated as parties. A second amended complaint was filed on June 10, 2013, which dropped the infringement allegations with respect to the '999 patent. (D.I. 28). Defendants responded to the second amended complaint on June 28, 2013. (D.I. 33). There are no counterclaims or cross-claims.
On February 11, 2015, the Court issued its Claim Construction Opinion (D.I. 332) and ruled on Defendants' motions for summary judgment (D.I. 334). The Court granted summary judgment of invalidity with respect to the '105, '181, and '720 patents and partial summary judgment regarding the damages period for the '288 patent. (D.I. 334). The Court granted summary judgment that there was no literal infringement of the '105 and '846 patents. ( Id. ).
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 sets out the requirements for expert witness testimony and states:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise 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. The Third Circuit has explained:
Rule 702 embodies a trilogy of restrictions on expert testimony: qualification, reliability and fit. Qualification refers to the requirement that the witness possess specialized expertise. We have interpreted this requirement liberally, holding that "a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert." 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'; the expert must have good grounds' for his o[r] her belief. In sum, Daubert holds that an inquiry into the reliability of scientific evidence under Rule 702 requires a determination as to its scientific validity."... By means of a so-called "Daubert hearing, " the district court acts as a gatekeeper, preventing opinion testimony that does not meet the requirements of qualification, reliability and fit from reaching the jury.
Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried,
320 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir. 2003) (footnote and ...