Lack of Analysis Renders Expert Opinions Unreliable

The magistrate judge recommended granting defendants' motion to strike the report of plaintiffs' infringement expert because his opinions were unreliable. "[Plaintiffs' expert] purportedly addresses how each accused product infringes [the patents-in-suit]. His conclusion, however, fails to provide any analysis of how infringement was determined, and merely contains conclusory statements. . . . [He] merely states the claim limitations followed by general references to several documents and [a deposition]. Nowhere does [he] explain why the documents or deposition are relevant to the technology involved or to [the patent], how they show why claim 3 of the [patent] covers the accused product, or how they demonstrate or provide the required analysis of the claim elements to the accused product. . . . [E]ven if the court assumes the documents and deposition referenced by [plaintiffs' expert] contain the necessary analysis, it is not the court's role (nor the opposition's responsibility) to comb through these documents, extrapolate the necessary information, analyze it, and hobble together an expert opinion based on assumptions of what the expert felt was significant."

Magnetar Technologies Corp, et al. v. Six Flags Theme Park Inc., et al., 1-07-cv-00127 (DED February 7, 2014, Order) (Thynge, M.J.)