Expert Testimony That Non-Exclusive License Would Command Higher Royalty Rate Than Exclusive License Excluded as Unreliable

The court granted in part defendants' motion in limine to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's damages expert regarding a reasonable royalty rate as unreliable because of the expert's distinction between exclusive and nonexclusive licensees. "[D]efendants contend that [plaintiff's expert] contradicts basic principles of patent law and economics in opining that the non-exclusive hypothetical [party] license could command a higher royalty rate than the [plaintiff-nonparty's] exclusive license because an exclusive license provides the licensee with more rights and benefits than a non-exclusive license. . . . [Plaintiff] bears the burden of showing that [its expert's] testimony is reliable. The Court will not allow [plaintiff's expert] to testify that the non-exclusive hypothetical [party] license would command a higher royalty rate based on surveys he has reviewed because he has not provided citations to any such surveys or demonstrated how they are related to the specific facts of this case."

Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et al, 1-12-cv-11935 (MAD October 23, 2015, Order) (Saris, J.)