Mondis Technology Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc et al

Filing 644

OPINION & ORDER that LGs motion to strike 634 is GRANTED in partand decision is RESERVED in part; as to Mr. Lamms supplementary report, the motion to strike is GRANTED, and the Court STRIKES that report from the record; as to Mr. Bratics supplement ary report, decision on the motion tostrike is RESERVED pending supplementary briefing; within two weeks of the date of entry of this Order, Mondis shall submit the supplementary briefing described above; within two weeks of the filing of Plaintiffs supplementary briefing, LG shall submit a responsive brief. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 7/15/2020. (sm)

Case 2:15-cv-04431-SRC-CLW Document 644 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 43145

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD. et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
:
et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 15-4431 (SRC)

OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to strike by LG Electronics, Inc. and
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”). Plaintiffs Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., n/k/a Maxell
Holdings, Ltd., Maxell, Ltd., and Mondis Technology Ltd. (collectively, “Mondis”) oppose the
motion. LG asks the Court to strike the supplemental expert report of Mr. Lamm, as well as:
(2) any opinions in Mr. Bratic’s new damages expert report that rely on Mr.
Lamm’s new report; and (3) any remaining new damages theories in Mr. Bratic’s
new report.
(Defs.’ Br. 23.) The net effect of these two requests, LG contends, is to strike Mr. Bratic’s
supplementary report in its entirety.
The parties do not dispute that submission of Mr. Lamm’s supplementary report has not
been authorized by this Court, and Mondis seeks leave of the Court to allow it. Mondis,
however, makes not even a colorable argument in favor of granting this request. On April 22,
2020, this Court issued an Opinion and Order which stated:
This Court grants LG’s motion for a new trial, subject to the following
limitations. At the new trial, the parties may not offer evidence that was not
1

Case 2:15-cv-04431-SRC-CLW Document 644 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 43146

presented at the previous trial, with one potential exception: should Mondis seek
to offer the expert testimony of Mr. Bratic, based solely on the evidence presented
at the previous trial, Mondis may submit an updated expert report, which this
Court will consider in a Daubert hearing.
(Opinion & Order of April 22, 2020 at 9.) Mr. Lamm’s supplementary report violates this Order
and the motion to strike that supplementary report will be granted.
As to Mr. Bratic’s supplementary report, LG moves to strike parts of the report on two
grounds: 1) some parts rely on Mr. Lamm’s unauthorized supplementary report; and 2) some
parts contain new theories. To the extent that Mr. Bratic’s supplementary report contains
opinions that rely, even in part, on Mr. Lamm’s unauthorized supplementary report, the motion
to strike those opinions is granted, as they are in clear violation of this Court’s Order.
LG’s second argument concerns alleged new theories in Mr. Bratic’s supplementary
report. LG cites this Court’s Opinion and Order filed June 11, 2020, which stated:
The Court has limited supplementary discovery to a very narrow scope, and will
not allow a new theory of damages to be presented at the re-trial. No new
evidence may be presented at the re-trial, with the possible exception of updated
expert testimony.
(Opinion & Order of June 11, 2020 at 5.) LG argues that Mr. Bratic’s supplementary report
contains many opinions which constitute “a new theory of damages” and therefore violate this
Order. The Court concludes that LG has advanced an overbroad interpretation of “a new theory
of damages.” The Court did not intend the narrowly limiting effect that LG’s interpretation
would produce. The Court did not intend to simultaneously reject the threshold theory while
barring everything that was not the threshold theory at re-trial. Mr. Bratic may express expert
opinions about reasonable royalties to the extent that such opinions are based on the existing trial
record only. Such expert opinions will not be barred.
The Court recognizes, however, that the parties are sure to have differing opinions about
2

Case 2:15-cv-04431-SRC-CLW Document 644 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 43147

how to apply these rulings to Mr. Bratic’s supplementary report. To assist the Court in making
a ruling that provides clarity, Mondis shall submit supplementary briefing, with certifications, as
needed, which precisely document the supporting evidentiary basis of every element of Mr.
Bratic’s proposed expert opinions in the trial record. LG shall submit a responsive brief. The
Court will then determine what parts, if any, of Mr. Bratic’s supplementary report it will strike.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 15th day of July, 2020
ORDERED that LG’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 634) is GRANTED in part
and decision is RESERVED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that, as to Mr. Lamm’s supplementary report, the motion to strike is
GRANTED, and the Court STRIKES that report from the record; and it is further
ORDERED that, as to Mr. Bratic’s supplementary report, decision on the motion to
strike is RESERVED pending supplementary briefing; and it is further
ORDERED that, within two weeks of the date of entry of this Order, Mondis shall
submit the supplementary briefing described above; and it is further
ORDERED that, within two weeks of the filing of Plaintiff’s supplementary briefing, LG
shall submit a responsive brief.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

3