Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony—The Subject of the Testimony Goes to the Weight and Not the Admissibility

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
December 6, 2021
3841 Surgical and Medical Instruments and Apparatus
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
intellectual property, expert testimony
licensing, patent infringement, royalty rate, expert testimony, patent, trademark, comparable, license agreement

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238187; 2021 WL 5832785
US
Federal Court
Tennessee
United States District Court
Justin Blok
Jon P. McCalla

Summary

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.

See Also

Xodus Med. v. Prime Med. (I)

This was a patent infringement case related to technology "related to patient slippage within the context of the Trendelenburg position for surgery—when using a viscoelastic foam." Justin Blok was the defendants’ damages expert. The plaintiffs sought to exclude Blok’s testimony on the reasonable royalty because they contended he used unreliable and irrelevant documents to support his opinion. The defendants argued, and the court agreed, that Blok’s opinions go to the weight and not to the admissibility of his opinions.