InterDigital Communications Inc. et al v. ZTE Corporation et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER regarding Dr. Haas's testimony (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/17/2015. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
INC., a Delaware corporation,
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
IPR LICENSING, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and INTERDIGITAL
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
C.A. No. 13-009-RGA
ZTE CORPORATION, a Chinese
corporation, and ZTE (USA) INC., a New
Before the Court is ZTE's request to exclude Dr. Haas's testimony with respect to his
statistical conclusions regarding how PDCCHs operate in the accused devices, as well as
Plaintiffs' response. (D.I. 518, 522, 525). The Court heard oral argument and expert testimony
at a Daubert hearing on April 14, 2015. (D.I. 523).
Though Defendants state that Dr. Haas's testimony fails under Federal Rule of Evidence
702, the majority of their arguments relate to lack of disclosure. Defendants argue that Dr. Haas
never provided bases for his conclusion that it is statistically likely that the same resource
elements carrying an occurrence of a PDCCH will be used to transmit both uplink and downlink
channel assignment information. (D.I. 518 at p. 4; D.I. 522). Defendants argue that because he
failed to disclose the bases or methodology for his statistical conclusions, he should be precluded
from testifying as to them at trial. (D.I. 522 at p. 1). Plaintiffs respond that Dr. Haas's theory
was disclosed in his opening report and multiple times since. (D.I. 525 at 1-2).
I find that the gist of Dr. Haas's theory was disclosed in his expert reports, but that he did
not disclose the mathematical analysis he presented at the Daubert hearing. Dr. Haas will
therefore be permitted to testify about his theory generally, but cannot engage in mathematical
analysis unless asked on cross-examination. Dr. Haas may testify that there are a finite number
of locations a PDCCH can occupy, and because there are thousands of channels it is very likely
that one location will, over time, be occupied with a PDCCH carrying uplink channel assignment
information and a PDCCH carrying downlink channel assignment information. Dr. Haas may
not testify that there are 70 candidate locations, as that number was not disclosed prior to the
Daubert hearing. Nor may he testify that there is a one-in-a-million chance that a resource
element will not carry both types of assignment information.
i] day of April, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?