Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 12-259-RGA, February 24, 2015.
Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert’s testimony is granted with respect to lost profits and denied with respect to reasonable royalty. The court took testimony and held oral argument on January 30, 2015.
Defendants seek to preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s damages expert James Pampinella. The reasonable royalty analysis is primarily based on a 2012 settlement agreement with a third party covering the same patents. Part of the analysis included the value attributable to the patents-in-suit. Defendants accuse the expert of cherry-picking, not factoring in other licenses he had considered. The court finds that the arguments go to the weight to be afforded and does not preclude the reasonable royalty testimony. With respect to lost profits, the court finds the analysis is based on a faulty legal premise and excludes that testimony. The revenue comes from unpatented software with no functional relationship with the patents. Also, case law is based on an analysis where the infringing sales did not occur, but this expert opined based on the defendant licensing the patent. The court finds this theory unviable.
