Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Delaware Display Group LLC v. Lenovo Holding Company Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

January 18, 2017

DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC and INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
LENOVO GROUP LTD., LENOVO HOLDING CO., INC., and LENOVO UNITED STATES INC., Defendants. DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC and INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
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,
v.
VIZIO, INC., Defendant.

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq., FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patrick J. Conroy, Esq. (argued), James Perkins, Esq., BRAGALONE & CONROY PC, Dallas, Texas. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          David 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.

          Pilar 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.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         The 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).[1]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.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal 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 admissibility."
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).[2] 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).

         "[E]stimating 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.