By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Cirba Inc. d/b/a Densify) et al. v. VMware, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-742-LPS (D.Del. January 7, 2020), the Court granted Defendant VMware’s motion to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiffs’ trademark expert, Vincent Mayfield. While the Court rejected VMware’s argument that Mr. Mayfield’s opinions constitute improper expert testimony, it agreed with VMware that Mr. Mayfield lacked the qualifications to offer his expert opinions. Id. at *4.
In so ruling, the Court noted that Mr. Mayfield’s qualifications rested largely on his significant experience as an IT professional. Id. The Court explained that, while practical experience could be grounds for qualifying an expert under Daubert, the “qualifying expert must provide some reliable methodology or principles by which he formed his opinion. Mr. Mayfield has not done so here.” Id. at *4-5.
A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
The takeaway is that, in any expert report, a party’s expert should sufficiently set forth his or her qualifications (education, experience, etc.) and the reliable methodology and/or principles on which his or her opinions are based. The more widely accepted and tested the methodology and/or principles are in the particular subject matter, the more difficult any Daubert challenge.
[View source.]
