Case Cite

Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. North Amer. Corp., No. 09-80-LPS-MPT, 2013 WL 2178047 (D. Del. May 20, 2013).

IPDQ Commentary

Patience is a virtue. In a lengthy, thorough and thoughtful opinion, the magistrate judge in Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. North Amer. Corp. patiently considered dozens of arguments and counter arguments when ruling on the parties’ cross-Daubert motions. In a fact-specific case, virtually every possible argument was raised regarding an opposing party’s damages expert, and the court sorted them all out.

Case Summary

The district court addressed cross-Daubert motions to exclude testimony by the other party’s damages experts. In her opinion, the magistrate judge analyzed issues including: (1) the ability of experts to testify to the existence of non-infringing alternatives (relating to Plaintiff’s lost profits claim (Id. at *3, *11); (2) the timeliness of a supplemental expert report (Id. at *11); (3) the commercial success of Plaintiff’s products (Id. at *12); (4) one expert’s reliance of the opinions of other experts (Id. at *13); (5) opinions on incremental profits margins (Id. at *19); (5) comparable license agreements (Id. at *20); (6) lost sales on stand-alone units (Id. at *22); (7) reasonable royalties (Id. at *23); (8) future damages (Id. at *24-*25); (9) Plantiff’s profit margin (Id. at *25-*26); and (10) “but for” world analysis. (Id. at *26).