United States District Court, D. Delaware
before the Court are Defendants' Joint Motion to Exclude
the Testimony of Damages Expert Scott D. Hampton (D.I. 379)
and Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and
Testimony of Ryan Sullivan (D.I. 383). I have considered the
parties' briefing. (D.I. 380; 431; 461; 384; 432; 455;
533; 534; 537). I held oral argument on Defendants'
motion in the related civil case, No. 14-803, on October 18,
2017. (Civ. Act. No. 14-803, D.I. 573). I held oral argument
on Plaintiffs' motion on November 16, 2017. (D.I. 535).
MiiCs & Partners, America, Inc. and Gold Charm Ltd. filed
this patent infringement action against Defendants Funai
Electric, Ltd., P&F USA, Inc., and Funai Corp., Inc. on
June 24, 2014. (D.I. 1). With the Court's permission,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 31, 2015, in
which they asserted additional patents. (D.I. 38). On August
11, 2015, this Court stayed the case pending inter
partes review before the PTAB. (D.I. 84). After
Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw certain patents on which the
PTAB instituted IPRs, the Court lifted the stay on March 31,
2016. (D.I. 117). On June 15, 2016, the Court granted Samsung
Display Co.'s motion to intervene. (D.I. 160).
remaining patents-at-issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 211, 534
("the '534 patent") and 6, 734, 927 ("the
'927 patent"). (See D.I. 548; 550). In
light of my Memorandum Order of December 1, 2017 (D.I. 550),
Samsung is no longer in the case.
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.
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
move to exclude the testimony of Mr. Hampton on the grounds
that his royalty rate does not fit the facts of this case, is
not based on a reliable methodology, and overestimates the
value of the asserted patents. (See generally D.I.
380; D.I. 533 (setting forth Defendants' objections to
Mr. Hampton's November 13th updated expert report)). More
specifically, Defendants object to Mr. Hampton's (1)
starting point assumptions, (2) Georgia-Pacific
analysis, (3) use of a composite royalty rate, and (4) use of
one hypothetical negotiation date.