`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No . 1: 16-cv-00454-RGA
`
`ORDER
`
`Presently before me are Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton
`
`and Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Dr.
`
`Michael Mitzenmacher, Dr. Christine Meyer, Dr. Harry Bims, and Dr. Ricardo Valerdi. (D.I.
`
`425,435). The Parties have fully briefed the issues. (D.I. 426,437, 465, 467, 476, 478). For the
`
`reasons set out below, the Parties' motions to exclude damages experts are dismissed as moot
`
`and Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony as to Dr. Medvidovic and Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher is denied.
`
`Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton and Defendant' s
`
`Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Meyer, Dr. Bims, and Dr. Valerdi are dismissed as
`
`moot. The Parties are in the process of reworking their damages cases. Plaintiff has stipulated to
`
`striking certain portions of its current damages case and is submitting a supplemental damages
`
`report from Mr. Russell Parr. (D.I. 513 at 3). Defendant plans to serve responsive reports and
`
`take additional depositions. (Id.). The present motions, which assume a damages case that no
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 522 Filed 01/23/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 43272
`
`longer exists, are therefore moot. The Parties will have an opportunity to object to damages
`
`expert testimony once the damages experts' opinions are finalized . 1
`
`Defendant filed the only Daubert motion that is unrelated to damages. It argues that I
`
`should exclude the opinions of Dr. Medvidovic and Dr. Mitzenmacher as "nothing but bare
`
`conclusions." (D.I. 426 at 33). Defendant' s argument does not substantively differ from the
`
`argument which I rejected in the Activision Blizzard matter. (D.I. 499 at 25-26). Like
`
`Activision, Defendant does not make a serious case to exclude expert testimony based on
`
`"qualification, reliability, and fit. " See Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d
`
`396, 404-405 (3d Cir. 2003). And, as it did in the Activision Blizzard matter, Plaintiff points to
`
`sections in its experts' reports which provide explanations of the experts' infringement opinions.
`
`(D.I. 467 at 31-33). Accordingly, I will deny Defendant' s motion as to the opinions of Dr.
`
`Medvidovic and Dr. Mitzenmacher.
`
`Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton (D.I. 435) is
`
`DISMISSED-IN-PART as MOOT. 2 Defendant' s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (D.I.
`
`425) is DISMISSED as MOOT as to Dr. Meyer, Dr. Bims, and Dr. Valerdi and DENIED as to
`
`Dr. Medvidovic and Dr. Mitzenmacher.
`
`IT JS SO ORDERED this f}:J,ay of January 2019.
`
`United States Dist ict Judge
`
`1 Several issues that the Parties raise in the currently filed Daubert briefing are similar to issues
`which I addressed in the Activision Blizzard matter, C.A. 16-453. (D.I. 499). The Parties should
`note that, absent a compelling reason, I do not intend to reach a different conclusion in this case
`on the admissibility of an expert opinion which is substantially identical to an expert opinion I
`admitted in the Activision Blizzard matter.
`2 D.I. 435 remains pending as to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
