United States District Court, D. Delaware
DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC and INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiffs,
LENOVO GROUP LTD., LENOVO HOLDING CO., INC., and LENOVO UNITED STATES INC., Defendants. DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC and INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiffs,
LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., LG DISPLAY CO. LTD., and LG DISPLAY AMERICA INC., Defendants. DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC and INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiffs,
VIZIO, INC., Defendant.
E. Farnan, Esq., FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patrick J.
Conroy, Esq. (argued), James Perkins, Esq., BRAGALONE &
CONROY PC, Dallas, Texas. Attorneys for Plaintiff
E. Moore, Esq., POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, DE; Eric J. Klein, Esq., VINSON & ELKINS LLP,
Dallas, Texas. Attorneys for Defendants Lenovo Group Ltd.,
Lenovo Holding Co., Inc., and Lenovo (United States) Inc.
Benjamin Schladweiler, Esq., ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP,
Wilmington, DE; Jamie B. Beaber, Esq., Kfir Levy, Esq., MAYER
BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C. Attorneys for Defendants LG
Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., LG Display Co.
Ltd., and LG Display America Inc.
G. Kraman, Esq., YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR,
Wilmington, DE; Jason C. Lo, Esq. (argued), Raymond A.
LaMagna, Esq., GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles,
California. Attorneys for Defendant Vizio, Inc.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff in these three related suits is Innovative Display
Technologies LLC. There are three sets of Defendants: (1) in
the 13-2108 action, Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo Holding Co.,
Inc., and Lenovo (United States) Inc.; (2) in the 13-2109
action, LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., LG
Display Co. Ltd., and LG Display America, Inc.; and (3) in
the 13-2112 action, Vizio, Inc. (collectively,
"Defendants"). Presently before me is
Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Patrick
F. Kennedy, Ph.D. (D.I. 376).The motion is fully briefed. (D.I.
377; D.I. 431; D.I. 458). I held oral argument on October 24,
2016. I also held a Daubert hearing on November 18,
2016 ("Tr."). Plaintiffs damages expert, Patrick F.
Kennedy, Ph.D. testified at the Daubert hearing. For
the reasons stated below, I am denying the motion. A separate
order consistent with this memorandum opinion follows.
Rule of Evidence 702 sets out the requirements for expert
witness testimony, stating that:
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."
Finally, Rule 702 requires that the expert testimony must fit
the issues in the case. In other words, the expert's
testimony must be relevant for the purposes of the case and
must assist the trier of fact. The Supreme Court explained in
Daubert that "Rule 702's
'helpfulness' standard requires a valid scientific
connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to
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.
See Daubert ("Faced with a proffer of expert
scientific testimony, then, the trial judge must determine at
the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a) [of the Federal Rules of
Evidence] whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1)
scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact
to understand or determine a fact in issue.").
Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320
F.3d 396, 404-05 (3d Cir. 2003) (footnote and internal
citations omitted). The proponent of expert testimony must
"demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the
[expert's] opinions are reliable." In re Paoli
R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d Cir. 1994).
a reasonable royalty is not an exact science."
Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,802 F.3d 1283,
1296 (Fed. Cir. 2015). "The record may support a range
of reasonable royalties, rather than a single value."
(Id.) "Likewise, there may be more than one
reliable method for estimating a reasonable royalty."
(Id.). "All approaches have certain strengths
and weaknesses, and, depending upon the facts, one or all may
produce admissible testimony in a particular case."
(Id.). "Because each case presents unique
circumstances and facts, it is common for parties to choose
different, reliable approaches in a single case and, when
they do, the relative strengths and weaknesses of each
approach may be exposed at trial or attacked during