Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Defendants’ motion to exclude portions of damages expert Justin R. Blok’s opinions in a patent infringement action. The court held that the expert’s reliance on a settlement license, market research data, hearsay and unauthenticated materials, and a potentially untimely report did not warrant exclusion at that stage, while carrying certain timeliness arguments for consideration in a related pending motion.
Holdings
- Blok’s reliance on the Innolux Agreement to calculate a reasonable royalty was sufficiently reliable and was not rendered inadmissible merely because the agreement resulted from litigation or included rights to additional patents.
- Blok’s use of the Grand View and Statista TV Market Reports to estimate the rate at which AUO customers imported allegedly infringing products was sufficiently reliable under Rule 702 and Daubert.
- The court denied the motion to exclude Blok’s reliance on hearsay and unauthenticated evidence concerning Alta’s discussions with AUO and Alta’s financial position.
- The challenge to Blok’s use of the allegedly untimely RosettiStarr Report was premature because Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement the damages report remained pending.
Questions Presented
- Whether Blok’s reliance on the Innolux litigation settlement agreement, including its unit count, settlement payment, and multiple released patents, was sufficiently reliable under Rule 702 and Daubert.
- Whether Blok’s use of third-party market research reports to estimate the importation of AUO products was sufficiently reliable.
- Whether Blok could rely on hearsay and unauthenticated evidence concerning Alta’s discussions with AUO and Alta’s financial position in forming his expert opinions.
- Whether Defendants’ challenge to Blok’s use of the allegedly untimely RosettiStarr Report was ripe for decision.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (14)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999)(followed)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 592–93 (1993)(followed)
- United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 424 (5th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1391–92 (Fed. Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 249–50 (5th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Estech Sys. IP, LLC v. Carvana LLC, No. 2:21-CV-00482, 2023 WL 3292881, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2023)(followed)
- EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (en banc)(distinguished)
- ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 872–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 849 F.3d 1360, 1369–72 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…