AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation C.A. No. 10-610-RGA, February 21, 2013
Andrews, J. Defendant’s Daubert motion and motion in limine to exclude expert testimony is granted. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no damages is held in abeyance pending further conference with attorneys.
Defendant moved to exclude damages expert testimony and damages testimony by inventor. The motion was granted. The damages expert testimony concerning a single settlement agreement on a different patent without any analysis of the settlement context is not a reliable method for calculating damages. An analysis that relies on a single license agreement but does not take into account why other licenses are not comparable cannot be a reliable analysis. The proffered inventor testimony on damages is largely improper expert opinion or improper speculative or hypothetical testimony that is inadmissible. The inventor would, however, be allowed to testify regarding his actual negotiations with defendant. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no damages is held in abeyance to determine whether plaintiff plans to move forward with the inventor’s admissible damages testimony concerning actual negotiations with defendant.