November 6, 2015 – The Court granted Defendant C.R. Bard’s Daubert motion to exclude certain opinions and testimony from Plaintiff W.L. Gore’s damages expert because her reasonable royalty damages opinions were based on unreliable opinions from W.L. Gore’s technical expert. The Court reasoned “it is clear that [W.L. Gore’s damages expert] relied exclusively on her conversation with [W.L. Gore’s technical expert] in reaching a conclusion regarding technological comparability of the [C.R. Bard’s licensed] patent and the asserted patents” and “the problem is that [the technical expert’s] reports contain no opinions (nor really even any mention) as to whether the technology at issue in [C.R. Bard’s licensed] patent is comparable in technological significance to that covered by the asserted patents.” The Court, however, allowed the technical expert to supplement his expert report limited to the issue of technological comparability.
The case is captioned W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., 11-cv-515, in the District of Delaware.
By: Christopher J. Stankus