Author: Expert Witness Profiler
-
Intellectual Property Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Because it Does Not Invoke the Entire Market Value Rule
Plaintiff Wireless Alliance, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Wireless Alliance”) brought allegations against Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and AT&T Corp. (“Defendants” or “AT&T”). Wireless Alliance asserted that AT&T infringed on several United States patents concerning enhancements to cellular networking systems. The patents in question include United States Patent No. 9,144,106 (the “‘106 patent”), Patent…
-
Law Enforcement Expert Witness’ Disclosure Held to be Inadequate
This case deals with the indictment of Derik Carothers. He is charged with three offenses. At Count One, the grand jury charged him with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base, in the form commonly known as crack, a Schedule II controlled substance. At Count Two, the grand…
-
Economics Expert Witness’ Testimony Limited Because His Zero Damages Opinion is Irrelevant
Plaintiff I-Mab Biopharma (“I-Mab” or “Plaintiff”) brought trade secret misappropriation claims against Defendants Inhibrx, Inc. (“Inhibrx”) and Brendan Eckelman (“Dr. Eckelman” and collectively with Inhibrx, “Defendants”). Plaintiff asserted that Defendants misappropriated nine trade secrets (that correspond to molecules designed to treat cancer) that are referred to herein as Trade Secret 1, Trade Secret 2, Trade…
-
Environmental Engineering Expert Witness’ Testimony on Toxic Chemical Exposure Admitted
Over sixty Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation’s weapons manufacturing facility in Orlando released toxic chemicals that contaminated the air, soil, and groundwater, leading to various injuries among the Plaintiffs. The instant case formed a part of a group of related toxic tort cases. Following a complex history during the dispositive motion stage, the…
-
Telecommunications Expert Witness’ Opinions Regarding 3GPP Availability Admitted
Plaintiff Wireless Alliance, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Wireless Alliance”) made certain allegations Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and AT&T Corp. (“Defendants” or “AT&T”). According to Wireless Alliance, AT&T infringed the following United States patents that relate to improvements to cellular networking systems: United States Patent No. 9,144,106 (the “’106 patent”), 9,565,662 (the “’662 patent”)…
-
Statistics Expert Witness’ Damages Calculation Limited Because She Included Extended Gap Periods in Her Analysis
Defendant, New Prime, Inc., is a commercial trucking company, and its drivers are required to have a Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”). It designates its CDL-licensed drivers as A seat, B seat, and C seat. B and C seat drivers are paired with an A seat driver until they attain enough experience to be an A…
-
Construction Expert Witness’ Damages Analysis Admitted Despite Late Disclosure
This case stems from a 2022 subcontract between HBonilla (Plaintiff) and Defendant Ragle, Inc. (“Ragle”) for HBonilla to perform work for the City of Dallas. In 2023, Ragle claims it discovered that HBonilla had been overbilling for its work. After a dispute, HBonilla stopped working on the project and filed a lawsuit against Ragle and…
-
Chemical Engineering Expert Witness’ Findings from the Battery Failure Investigation Excluded
On March 12, 2019, a fire broke out at a Forest River manufacturing facility. American Home Assurance Company, a subrogee of Forest River, says a lithium-ion battery from a Makita power drill is to blame. American sued both Makita Corporation of America and Makita U.S.A., Inc. under Indiana’s Product Liability Act. The two companies (called…
-
Medical Billing Expert Witness’ Opinions on the Reasonable Value of the Bills Admitted
Plaintiff Wendy Marie Henshaw alleged that she slipped and fell on a liquid substance on October 28, 2021, at the Defendant Wal-Mart’s premises. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant’s medical billing and coding expert, Kathleen DePaolo, MSHI, RHIA, CCS. DePaolo, who is a “Certified Coding Specialist,” intended to offer expert testimony regarding the reasonable…
-
Insurance Expert Witness’ Testimony Limited Because it Consists of the Interpretation of Policy Language
Plaintiff American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“AESLIC” or “Plaintiff”) issued to J.R. a commercial excess liability insurance policy, which included a premium charge to be computed as a percentage of J.R.’s gross receipts during the policy period. Plaintiff assigned an advanced premium to the Policy based on J.R.’s estimate of its gross receipts during the…
