The court granted defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's damages expert to the extent such testimony relied on allegedly similar license agreements. "The Court . . . finds [the expert's] report inadequate for failing to support his conclusion that the relied on licenses are comparable to the hypothetical agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants. [The expert] concluded each license agreement is comparable to the hypothetical agreement by simply reciting 'I understand that this technology is in the same field of technology as are the Patents-in-Suit.' To support this statement, [the expert] merely cited to 'Interview with Andrew Walding,' the Plaintiff’s technical expert. [The expert] did not detail the substance of his interview with Mr. Walding nor did he offer further explanation or rationale to justify his conclusions the license agreements pertained to comparable technology. Furthermore, [the expert] failed to explain whether the license agreements pertained to patented inventions that were essential to or only a small feature or component of the overall product."
Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., 6-08-cv-00273 (TXED April 16, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Love, M.J.)