Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Plastronics Socket Partners, Ltd. v. Hwang

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

May 20, 2019

PLASTRONICS SOCKET PARTNERS, LTD. ET AL, Plaintiffs,
v.
DONG WEON HWANG ET AL, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          ROY S. PAYNE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs' Motion.

         I. APPLICABLE LAW

         Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony and provides

         [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.

         “Vigorous 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).

         Rule 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 be admitted.

         In 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).

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.