Prism Technologies v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion (Filing No. 325 ) to strike a non-infringing alternative theory is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion (Filing No. 329 ) to strike evidence of SIM-card, SSPPU evidence is granted. Plaintiff's motion (Filing No. 333 ) to exclude the testimony and opinions of Sprint's damages expert is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
d/b/a SPRINT PCS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on three related
motions filed by plaintiff Prism Technologies, L.L.C. (“Prism”)
regarding Scott Hampton (“Mr. Hampton”), damages expert for
defendant Sprint Spectrum, doing business as Sprint P.C.S.
First, Prism filed a motion (Filing No. 325) to
strike Mr. Hampton’s non-infringing alternative theory as
untimely and prejudicial.
Second, Prism filed a motion (Filing
No. 329) concerning Mr. Hampton’s Smallest Salable Patent
Practicing Unit (“SSPPU”) theory as untimely and prejudicial.
Third, Prism filed a Daubert motion (Filing No. 333) to exclude
Mr. Hampton’s testimony and opinions based upon the SSPPU and
First, the Court will deny Prism’s motion to strike
Sprint’s non-infringing theory as moot.
Sprint will not offer a
non-infringing theory at trial (Filing No. 392, at 5).
Second, the Court will grant Prism’s motion to strike
Sprint’s SSPPU rebuttal theory.
Sprint claims that Mr.
Malackowski’s damages report necessitated this new SSPPU theory.
Sprint’s argument is unsupported.
The Court finds Sprint’s new,
SIM-card theory is not related to Malackowski’s new damages
theory and, therefore, Sprint’s new theory is not rebuttal.
Court further finds that the SSPPU theory and its underlying
basis are untimely and prejudicial.
Third, the Court will deny Prism’s Daubert motion to
exclude the remainder of Mr. Hampton’s opinion.
Prism seeks to
entirely exclude Mr. Hampton’s opinions because those opinions
are based on the now-withdrawn non-infringement theory and the
late-disclosed SIM-card SSPPU theory.
However, the Court finds
that Mr. Hampton’s export report contains materials beyond those
For example, Mr. Hampton may testify to the Georgia-
Pacific factors and may offer his opinions as to why Mr.
Malackowski’s calculations are flawed.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 325) to strike a noninfringing alternative theory is denied as moot.
2) Plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 329) to strike
evidence of SIM-card, SSPPU evidence is granted.
3) Plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 333) to exclude the
testimony and opinions of Sprint’s damages expert is denied.
DATED this 8th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?