United States District Court, D. Delaware
ALARM.COM, INC. and ICN ACQUISITION, LLC, Plaintiffs;
SECURENET TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant.
B. Matterer and Kenneth L. Dorsney, MORRIS JAMES LLP,
Wilmington, DE; Ian R. Liston, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, P.C., Wilmington, DE; James C. Yoon, Ryan R. Smith
(argued), Christopher D. Mays, and Mary A. Procaccio-Flowers,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Palo Alto, CA,
attorneys for Plaintiffs.
B. Bhimenfeld and Stephen J. Kraftschik, MORRIS, NICHOLS,
ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erik B. Milch and
Frank Pietrantonio, COOLEY LLP, Reston, VA; Rose Whelan
(argued), and Naina Soni, COOLEY LLP, Washington, DC,
attorneys for Defendant.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Exclude
Opinions of Brett Reed. (D.I. 173). The parties have fully
briefed the issues. (D.I. 174, 187, 197). The Court heard
oral argument on December 3, 2018. (D.I. 208). After
considering the parties' briefing and argument, the Court
GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendant's Motion.
predecessor-in-interest iControl Networks, Inc. filed this
suit against Defendant SecureNet Technologies LLC on
September 11, 2015. (D.I. 1). The suit asserted United States
Patent Nos. 7, 855, 635 ("the '635 patent"), 8,
473, 619 ("the '619 patent"), 8, 478, 844
("the '844 patent"), and 8, 073, 931 ("the
'931 patent"). (D.I. 1 ¶¶ 3-7). The
patents-in-suit are generally related to integrating an alarm
system with an external security network and other
interfaces. ('635 patent, abstract; '619 patent,
abstract; '844 patent, abstract; '931 patent,
23, 2016, Plaintiffs Alarm.com and ICN Acquisition
(collectively "Plaintiffs") entered into an Asset
Purchase Agreement with iControl Networks to purchase the
patents-in-suit. (D.I. 177 at 209). Plaintiff ICN is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Alarm.com. (D.I. 186
¶ 2). On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff ICN completed its
acquisition of the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 177 at 209, 255).
On March 29, 2017, the Court substituted Alarm.com and ICN
for iControl as Plaintiffs in this action. (D.I. 28).
Defendant filed a Motion to Exclude Opinions of Brett Reed on
October 30, 2018. (D.I. 173).
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 or 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 arid 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)