In Delaware Display Group LLC v. Lenovo Holding Co., C.A. No. 13-2108-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2017), and related actions, Judge Andrews denied the various defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of the damages expert for the plaintiffs, Delaware Display Group LLC and Innovative Display Technologies, LLC (together, “Delaware Display”), as unreliable. The defendants argued that the expert failed to apportion between patented and unpatented features, improperly attributed 100% of incremental profit to the licensor, and improperly used a royalty rate based on a portfolio license covering unasserted patents.
The Court held that these criticisms of the expert’s methodology went to the weight of his opinions rather than to their admissibility. Specifically, Judge Andrews determined that the expert’s apportionment methodology and approach to determining the smallest saleable patent-practicing unit were sufficiently reasonable, the expert’s approach to determining the royalty rate was “logical,” and the expert’s portfolio license methodology was likewise reasonable, noting that there was no impermissible royalty stacking.
Key Points: This decision demonstrates the Court’s tendency to consider challenges to experts’ methodologies as going to the weight of the experts’ opinions rather than their admissibility.