TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY v. EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 12-11935-PBS (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20151021912
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER PATTI B. SARIS , Chief District Judge . The defendants have filed a Daubert Motion/Motion in Limine to exclude BU's expert infringement testimony based upon unreliable and undisclosed testing (Docket No. 1407). BU has opposed the motion (Docket No. 1436). After a review of the papers, I DENY the defendants' motion for the following reasons. The defendants do not challenge the qualifications of BU's experts or their employed methodology. The focus appears to be on the failure o
Summary: ORDER PATTI B. SARIS , Chief District Judge . The defendants have filed a Daubert Motion/Motion in Limine to exclude BU's expert infringement testimony based upon unreliable and undisclosed testing (Docket No. 1407). BU has opposed the motion (Docket No. 1436). After a review of the papers, I DENY the defendants' motion for the following reasons. The defendants do not challenge the qualifications of BU's experts or their employed methodology. The focus appears to be on the failure of..
More
ORDER
PATTI B. SARIS, Chief District Judge.
The defendants have filed a Daubert Motion/Motion in Limine to exclude BU's expert infringement testimony based upon unreliable and undisclosed testing (Docket No. 1407). BU has opposed the motion (Docket No. 1436). After a review of the papers, I DENY the defendants' motion for the following reasons.
The defendants do not challenge the qualifications of BU's experts or their employed methodology. The focus appears to be on the failure of the experts to properly disclose their testing data and the images used to form their opinions. BU has demonstrated that it has produced the underlying data and images by citing to disclosures filed on the docket. The defendants are also challenging the interpretation of the data by BU's experts. The issue of data interpretation, and the other issues raised by the defendants, like chain of custody for the tested samples, properly go to the weight and not to the admissibility of the expert evidence.
The defendants' Daubert Motion/Motion in Limine (Docket No. 1407) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
