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.

AVM Technologies LLC v. Intel Corp.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

April 27, 2017

AVM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff;
v.
INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant.

          Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Esq., ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas D. Mozal, Esq., ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Boies, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Armonk, NY; Rosanne C. Baxter, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Armonk, NY; D. Michael Underhill, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Washington, DC; Eric J. Maurer, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Washington, DC; Patrick M. Lafferty, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Washington, DC; Jon R. Knight, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Washington, DC; Patrick H. Bagley, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Edward H. Takashima, Esq., BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, Santa Monica, CA.

          Attorneys for Plaintiff David E. Moore, Esq., POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; David C. Marcus, Esq., WILMERHALE AND DORR LLP, Los Angeles, CA; William F. Lee, Esq., WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, MA; Lauren B. Fletcher, Esq., WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, MA; Jordan L. Hirsch, Esq., WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, MA; Kevin A. Goldman, Esq., WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, MA; Claire M. Specht, Esq., WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Boston, MA; Todd Zubler, Esq., WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Washington, DC; Jason Kipnis, Esq., WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, Palo Alto, CA. Attorneys for Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Marwan Hassoun (D.I. 428) and related briefing (D.I. 429, 491, 541) and Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of John A. Hatch (D.I. 426) and related briefing (D.I. 427, 487, 529). The parties have submitted additional letter briefing related to the Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Marwan Hassoun. (D.I. 626, 627, 643, 644). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony of Marwan Hassoun and Motion to Exclude the Testimony of John A. Hatch are granted.

         I. Background

         In this infringement action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has infringed claims 1-7, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-21 of U.S. Patent No. 5, 859, 547 ("the '547 patent"). (D.I. 614 at 4). The testimony of each of the two experts that Defendant seeks to exclude relates to Plaintiffs theory of damages. Defendant's products are microprocessor chips that are binned, or classified, based on their speed and power consumption characteristics. Generally speaking, faster chips command a higher price.

         Dr. Hassoun's testimony forms the foundation for Plaintiffs damages theory. Dr. Hassoun modeled a limited number of circuits, one or two from each of the accused products, and estimated the speed benefit that Defendant's products enjoy from allegedly practicing the '547 patent with respect to each of these four circuits. (D.I. 440-1 at 3, ¶603 ("I can then use this model to describe the speed advantages provided by using the '547 patent.")).

         Dr. Hatch combined Dr. Hassoun's estimated speed benefit with the incremental price benefit provided by Dr. Knittel, Plaintiffs statistics expert, to arrive at a total damages estimate for all of the accused products. (D.I. 441-1 at 73-76, ¶192-201). Specifically, Dr. Hatch used Dr.

         Hassoun's calculated speed reduction to determine the price reduction according to Dr. Knittel's regression for each individual product. (Id. at 73, ¶191-94). Dr. Hatch then applied this price reduction to the total revenue for each product to estimate the total increase in value due to Defendant allegedly practicing the '547 patent. (Id. at 73, ¶193).

         Dr. Hassoun created five different Tech Models. (D.I. 440-1 at 6-26, ¶¶606-45). In arriving at his final damages estimate, Dr. Hatch considered each of the Tech Models and determined that the parties would rely on either Tech Model 1 or Tech Model 3, depending on which of the asserted claims Defendant is found to have infringed. (D.I. 441-1 at 75-76, ¶¶198, 200). Defendant focused on Tech Models 1 and 3 in its initial briefing on its Motion to Exclude Dr. Hassoun's testimony. (D.I. 429 at 8). At the Court's direction, the parties submitted additional briefing as to whether Tech Models 4 and 5 suffer from the same infirmities Defendant has alleged render Tech Models 1 and 3 unreliable. (D.I. 643, 644).

         II. Legal Standard

         "[T]he district court acts as a gatekeeper" to ensure that expert testimony is reliable and helpful. Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404 (3rd Cir. 2003). "The primary locus of this obligation is [Federal Rule of Evidence] 702." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589(1993). It reads:

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 ...

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.