M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-33 - RGA, February 25, 2016

Andrews, J. Defendant’s motion to exclude damages experts’ testimony is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion to exclude opinions of defendant’s expert is granted. A Daubert hearing took place on January 6-7, 2016.

The disputed technology is a programmable communicator device. Defendant moves to exclude the damages testimony of Herman “Whitey” Bluestein and Richard Bero. The accused products have multiple modes of operation, only two of which are accused of infringement. Mr. Bluestein’s opinions are excluded because (1) he is not qualified as an expert  to render the technical conclusions offered; (2) the reports relied upon are unrelated to the patented technology; and (3) the only like between the reports and the patented technology is the expert’s say-so.  Because Mr. Bero relies on Mr. Bluestein’s conclusions based on unsound methodology, his testimony must be excluded also.  Plaintiff moves to exclude the opinions of Charles Donohoe regarding running royalty rates because of reliance on non-comparable license agreements. The expert has failed to show how two large world-wide standard-essential FRAND patent portfolios are economically comparable to a license the parties would have agreed to for a single asserted patent and this portion of his opinion is excluded.