Case Cite

Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. North Amer. Corp., No. 09-80-LPS-MPT, 2013 WL 2920478 (D. Del. June 14, 2013).

IPDQ Commentary

The Masimo court ruled, in response to Daubert motions, that various experts could testify on issues relating to Masimo’s lost-profit damages claims. When the Defendant, Philips, sought to revisit those issues through motions for summary judgment, the magistrate judge found issues of fact and denied the motion.

Case Summary

Philips moved for summary judgment on Masimo’s claim for lost-profit damages, asserting (1) Masimo failed to present any evidence that an alternative was unacceptable, and (2) Masimo’s expert failed to use reliable data to calculate sales. Id. at *6. The court denied the motion:

  • Absence of Acceptable Noninfringing Alternative – First, Philips was re-arguing its Daubert motion challenging Masimo’s damages expert. The court had already allowed the expert to testify. Id. Second, there was a dispute between the experts, all of whom the court had allowed to testify, as to whether the alternative was acceptable. Id.
  • Lack of Reliable Data – Philips’ entire motion was a repeat of a prior Daubert motion. The court decided that motion and allowed the expert to testify, thereby creating an issue of material fact. Id. at *7.