Expert Testimony Concerning Hypothetical Negotiation Involving Third Parties Excluded as Unreliable

The court granted plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of defendant's damages expert to the extent the expert relied on a hypothetical negotiation that included entities other than the plaintiff and defendant. "[The expert's] opinions are thoroughly laced with legal commentary and that his opinions about what constitutes a reasonable royalty are based on a hypothetical negotiation that includes an entity other than the plaintiff and the defendant as a party to the negotiation. . . . [H]is opinion on the topic of a reasonable royalty is largely predicated on the financial status and interest of that third-party entity, and . . . the controlling law is predicated on a hypothetical negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant. . . . [Defendant's expert] is precluded from testifying on legal matters and from rendering opinions about a reasonable royalty that are based on a hypothetical negotiation that is not structured as involving only the plaintiff and defendant or that relies on the financial data or status of a third-party to the hypothetical negotiation."

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. NVIDIA Corporation et al, 3-14-cv-00757 (VAED December 8, 2015, Order) (Payne, J.)