United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., ET AL.
the Court is Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to
Exclude an Opinion and the Testimony of Juniper's
Technical Expert Dr. Cameron H. G. Wright. Doc. No. 817. The
Court held a hearing on this Motion on June 19, 2017. The
Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART.
Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”)
accuses Defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6, 218, 930
(“the ‘930 Patent”). The ‘930 Patent
is titled “Apparatus and Method for Remotely Powering
Access Equipment Over a 10/100 Switched Ethernet
Network.” See ‘930 Patent.
‘930 Patent discloses, for example:
delivering a low level current from the main power source to
the access device over the data signaling pair, sensing a
voltage level on the data signaling pair in response to the
low level current, and controlling power supplied by the
secondary power source to the access device in response to a
preselected condition of the voltage level.
Id. at 2:8-14.
disclosed embodiment describes using a fixed voltage drop
associated with a “resistive termination” to
identify equipment that cannot receive remote power.
Id. at 3:2-11 (“If a fixed voltage level is
detected then the remote equipment contains a dc resistive
termination . . ., and this equipment is identified as unable
to support remote power feed.”).
Cameron H. G. Wright (“Dr. Wright”),
Juniper's technical expert, generally opines that Juniper
does not infringe the ‘930 Patent.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702, 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.
trial judge has a gate-keeping role to ensure that expert
testimony is relevant and reliable. Daubert v. Merrill
Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Indeed,
“[t]he proponent [of the expert testimony] need not
prove to the judge that the expert's testimony is
correct, but she must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the testimony is reliable.” Moore v.
Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th. Cir.
1998). “The reliability prong [of Daubert]
mandates that expert opinion ‘be grounded in the
methods and procedures of science and . . . be more than
unsupported speculation or subjective belief.'”
Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d 452, 459
(5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Curtis v. M & S Petroleum,
Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 668 (5th Cir. 1999)).
to consider in determining whether a proposed expert's
methodology is ...