Summary
This memorandum order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas addresses the defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony of Justin Blok regarding patent damages. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards, the court evaluates whether the expert's methodology for calculating reasonable royalties and hypothetical negotiations is reliable. After analyzing arguments concerning the expert's reliance on survey data, a prior patent purchase agreement, a settlement license, and a failed joint venture, the court finds that any deficiencies relate to credibility rather than admissibility. Consequently, the court denies the motion to exclude the expert testimony.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the expert testimony of Justin Blok is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702
- Whether the expert's methodology for calculating reasonable royalties is reliable
Holdings
- The motion to exclude the expert testimony is denied; the expert's testimony is admissible.
Key quotations
“When, as here, the parties’ experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert’s testimony.”
“Vigorous cross‑examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”
Factual background
Multimedia Technologies purchased the asserted patents from Flextronics in 2022 and later licensed them to Samsung. The parties disputed the methodology of expert Justin Blok's damages calculations, including royalty base apportionment, market willingness‑to‑pay percentages, and consideration of purchase and licensing agreements. The court evaluated whether Blok's testimony satisfied Fed. R. Evid. 702.