United States District Court, D. Delaware
before me are seven motions submitted by TQ Delta and ADTRAN
regarding Family 10. This order will address ADTRAN's
Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Arthur Brody
(D.I. 718). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and related papers. (D.I. 719, 769, 786). After full
consideration of the briefing, the motion is resolved as
TQ Delta filed this lawsuit against Defendant ADTRAN on July
17, 2014, asserting infringement of one or more patents from
ten patent families. (D.I. 1). I have divided the case into
separate trials based on families of patents. (D.I. 369).
ADTRAN moves under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579, 595 (1993) to exclude the infringement and validity
opinions of Dr. Brody for Family 10 in their entirety. (D.I.
Brody's infringement opinions are based on two
alternative theories: (1) that the Accused Products infringe
asserted claims 5 and 14 of the '660 patent based on
their compliance with the VDSL2 standard and on Dr.
Almeroth's source code analysis for the BCM65300 chipset;
and (2) that the Accused Products infringe asserted claim 5
of the '660 patent based on their compliance with VDSL2
and G.inp Amendment 2 and on Dr. Cooklev's testing
results. Dr. Brody also offered a rebuttal to ADTRAN's
expert Dr. Zimmerman regarding the invalidity of the '660
patent based on certain combinations of prior art.
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 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) (cleaned up).
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."
TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc. 373 F.Supp.3d 509, 516
(D. Del. 2019) (citing Schneider, 320 F.3d at
404-05, see also Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
U.S.A., 350 F.3d 316, 321 (3d Cir. 2003). "Rule
702's liberal policy of admissibility extends to the
substantive as well as formal qualifications of
experts." In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35
F.3d 717, 741 (3d Cir. 1994). The Third Circuit has
"eschewed imposing overly rigorous requirements of
expertise and ha[s] been satisfied with more generalized
expert is qualified to provide testimony if he/she
"posses[es] at least ordinary skill in the pertinent
art." Sonos, Inc. v. D & M Holdings Inc.,
297 F.Supp.3d 501, 508 (D. Del 2017). An expert who lacks the
literal qualifications of one ordinarily skilled in the art,
but who otherwise has sufficient relevant technical
experience that will assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence, may still be qualified to testify in the
pertinent art. See, e.g., Tesco Corp. v.
Weatherford Intern. Inc., 750 F.Supp.2d 780, 795 (S.D.
Texas 2010) ("Even if he does not have specific
experience studying or working with pipe handling devices,
his three degrees in engineering and his experience in oil
fields sufficiently qualify Dr. Wooley as an expert on the
subject matter of this case. Rule 702 does not require [ ]
extreme specificity of expertise...."); Int'l
Gamco, Inc. v. Multimedia Games Inc., 732 F.Supp.2d
1082, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ("While Ms. Spielman may
lack the context in which these patents and technologies at
issue are designed and implemented... the main component of
the [ ] patent and its technologies at issue is clearly the
distributed computing system," with which the expert did
is not necessary that the expert have expertise in the
precise technology that is the subject of the patent or
patents in suit." Sonos, 297 F.Supp.3d at 510;
see also TQ Delta, 373 F.Supp.3d at 527-28 (denying
defendant's motion to exclude patentee's technical
expert, the court stated, "Defendant attempts to define
the pertinent art too narrowly. I determine that [the expert]
has sufficient experience with communications systems,
including DSL, to offer specialized testimony that would be
helpful to the jury."). ...