Damages Expert May Testify at Trial Despite “Lack of Experience in Actual Negotiations”

The court denied in part defendant's motion to exclude testimony from plaintiff's damages expert and rejected defendant's argument that she was not qualified due to her lack of real-world experience. "[Plaintiff] was not required to put forth the 'best qualified' witness but only an individual who could meet the minimum standards for expert testimony set out by the Third Circuit. Whether [plaintiff's expert] is the best qualified and most reasonable expert witness vis-à-vis any expert witness put on by [defendant] is a matter for the jury to resolve. . . . In light of the liberal standard for the qualifications of experts enunciated by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the Federal Circuit’s approval of the methods used by damages experts to quantify the hypothetical negotiation, it appears that an appropriately credentialed individual on the issue of intellectual property damages may testify at trial as to application of the Georgia-Pacific factors, including the artificial hypothetical negotiation, despite a lack of experience in actual negotiations."

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., et. al., 2-09-cv-00290 (PAWD December 15, 2012, Order) (Fischer, J.).