Helios Software, LLC, et al. v. SpectorSoft Corporation, C.A. No. 12-81 – LPS, March 31, 2015, redacted version filed April 14, 2015.
Stark, C. J. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendants' Technical Expert Glenn Reinman is denied. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Proposed Testimony of Jeremiah Grant is denied in part and granted in part. Defendants' Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs' Damages Expert Scott Weingust on Daubert Grounds is granted. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Non-Infringement, Lack of Willfulness and Divided Infringement is granted. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Limitations on Damages is denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct is denied. Oral argument took place on February 26, 2015.
Defendant’s expert Reinbert’s testimony is challenged to the extent it relies on the opinion of an expert in a related case. Reinbert conducted his own analysis of the prior art patent and product materials - although not the products themselves - identified by the other expert before independently reaching the same conclusions. His opinions are therefore somewhat helpful and his credibility is an issue for the jury. Mr. Grant's testimony is excluded because his calculation of an "implied" royalty rate does not reflect the actual royalty rates found in the licenses he relied on, and overall revenues are improperly calculated. The court precluded damages testimony from Mr. Weingust due to his failure to satisfy either the apportionment requirement or the entire market value rule in his damages analysis. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment regarding one claim element based on prosecution estoppel. The record does not support a claim of literal infringement, and is precluded by prosecution estoppel from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Summary judgment based on noninfringement of the ’304 patent is granted. Plaintiffs withdraw their claim of willfulness. The court limits damages by limiting inducement and contributory infringement damages to post-September 26, 2011, limiting damages from sales of the accused products to indirect infringement damages, and barring a finding of Defendants' liability for damages based on sales outside the United States. A reasonable jury could find intent to deceive based on the record and therefore the motion for a finding of no inequitable conduct is denied.