MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corporation, C.A. No. 13-304 – LPS, August 25, 2016.

Stark, C. J. Defendant’s motion to exclude testimony is granted in part and denied in part.  Oral argument took place on August 17, 2016.

Defendant moved to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s damages expert Charles Perry. The expert relied on a license relating to the patent-in-suit which had been made in the context of settling a litigation dispute.  He reasoned that Expected Damages= Settlement Value/Likelihood of Liability.  He set the likelihood of liability at 40% not based on facts relating to the merits of plaintiff’s case, but instead based on a study that patent holders tend to prevail about 40% in the district of Delaware.  The court finds that approach insufficiently tied to the facts of this case.  The expert’s consideration of a study done by the Licensing Executives Society is not stricken but goes to the weight of that testimony.  The parties are to meet and confer regarding the expert’s opportunity correct the unreliable portion of his prior opinion.