`y
`II
`
`r-N
`n\
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`i
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA j
`Richmond Division
`
`DEC - 8 2015
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14cv757
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`Having considered SAMSUNG'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE
`
`OPINION TESTIMONY OF DR.
`
`JONATHAN PUTNAM (Docket No. 326),
`
`the
`
`supporting and opposing memoranda,
`
`and
`
`the oral
`
`argument
`
`on
`
`December 1, 2015,
`
`and having reviewed Dr. Putnam's
`
`report,
`
`and
`
`finding that Dr. Putnam's opinions are thoroughly laced with legal
`
`commentary and that his opinions about what constitutes a reasonable
`
`royalty are based on a hypothetical negotiation that
`
`includes an
`
`entity other than the plaintiff and the defendant as a party to the
`
`negotiation, and that his opinion on the topic of a reasonable royalty
`
`is largely predicated on the financial status and interest of that
`
`third-party entity, and that the controlling law is predicated on
`
`a hypothetical negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant,
`
`it is hereby ORDERED that SAMSUNG'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE THE
`
`OPINION TESTIMONY OF DR.
`
`JONATHAN PUTNAM (Docket No. 326) is granted
`
`so that Dr. Putnam is precluded from testifying on legal matters and
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 563 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 35303
`
`from rendering opinions about a reasonable royalty that are based
`
`on a hypothetical negotiation that is not structured as involving
`
`only the plaintiff and defendant or that relies on the financial data
`
`or status of a third-party to the hypothetical negotiation.
`
`I t is so ORDERED.
`
`/s/
`
`Robert E. Payne
`Senior United States District Judge
`
`Richmond, Virginia
`Date: December 1, 2015
`
`
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
