ZF Meritor LLC et al v. Eaton Corporation

Filing 386

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 6/18/2014. (fms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

{

l

l
ZF MERITOR LLC and MERITOR
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,

v.
EATON CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)

)
)
)
) Civ. No. 06-623-SLR
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
At Wilmington this \ith day of June, 2014, having reviewed defendant Eaton
Corporation's ("Eaton") motion in limine (D.I. 377) and Eaton's request to exclude lost
profits (D. I. 375), the papers submitted in connection therewith, and the arguments of
counsel; the court issues its decision consistent with the reasoning that follows:
1. The trial on damages is scheduled to commence on June 23, 2014. The
parties continue to dispute issues relating to the viability of plaintiffs' damages
calculations. More specifically, although the law relating to these calculations is not
disputed, the parties disagree about whether plaintiffs' expert, Dr. DeRamus, has
applied the law correctly to the facts of record. At this late stage of the proceeding, I
decline to review Dr. DeRamus' expert report in the detail required to determine
whether he correctly calculated his "lost profits" damages figure or plaintiffs' "enterprise
value." I will be in a better position to judge defendant's concerns at the conclusion of
Dr. DeRamus' trial testimony. Consistent with my practices, all experts are bound by

I

the scope of their expert reports, which (inconsistent with my practices) I shall have on
the bench to promptly resolve any related objections. Counsel, however, should keep
in mind that any such objections and the time used to resolve them will be deducted
from their trial time.
2. Defendant also seeks to exclude lost profit damages after April 7, 2005,
based on an International Trade Commission ("lTC") opinion and order of the same
date, relating to prohibiting the importation and sale of certain transmissions found to be
infringing. Defendant raised this issue for the first time at the pretrial conference.
Moreover, plaintiff points to an lTC Advisory opinion dated January 10, 2006,
confirming that plaintiffs' redesign negated the infringement issue. This information has
been available to defendant, indeed, defendant filed the complaint with the lTC.
Without reaching the substantive arguments made by either party, the court denies
defendant's request to exclude lost profit damages on this ground, as such request is
based on information available to defendant which has not been vetted through
discovery. This issue is not properly raised mere weeks before trial. An order shall
issue.

2