United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division
PLASTRONICS SOCKET PARTNERS, LTD. ET AL, Plaintiffs,
DONG WEON HWANG ET AL, Defendants.
PAYNE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. (“Plastronics
Socket”) and Plastronics H-Pin, Ltd.
(“Plastronics H-Pin”) (collectively,
“Plastronics”) filed an Opposed Motion to Strike
Expert Reports of James Woods, which is now before the Court.
(Dkt. No. 205.) This Motion seeks to strike portions of
Woods' reports and exclude testimony regarding: (1)
non-infringing substitutes and the relevant market under
Panduit factor two; (2) manufacturing and marketing
capacity under Panduit factor three; (3) the
economic impact of the 2012 divisive merger between
Plastronics Socket and Plastronics H-Pin; and (4) assumptions
used by Woods regarding disputed terms of the contracts in
question to structure his damages calculations. After
consideration, the Court DENIES
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the
admissibility of expert testimony and provides
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
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and
careful instruction on the burden of proof are the
traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but
admissible evidence.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993).
Questions about the bases and sources of an expert's
opinion generally relate to the weight that should be given
to that opinion rather than the opinion's admissibility.
Primrose Operating Co. v. Nat'l Am. Ins. Co.,
382 F.3d 546, 562 (5th Cir. 2004).
703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that
[a]n expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case
that the expert has been made aware of or personally
observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably
rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on
the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to
determining whether a patentee is entitled to lost profits,
“[o]ne useful, but nonexclusive method to establish the
patentee's entitlement to lost profits” is the
Panduit test, which is set forth in Panduit
Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d
1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)). Georgetown Rail Equip. Co.
v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(quoting Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851
F.3d 1275, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). “The
Panduit test requires the patentee to show: (1)
‘demand for the patented product'; (2)
‘absence of acceptable noninfringing substitutes';
(3) ‘manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit
the demand'; and (4) ‘the amount of profit that . .
. would have [been] made.'” Georgetown
Rail, 867 F.3d at 1241 (quoting Panduit, 575
F.2d at 1156).