EDTX Denies Motion to Exclude Expert's Patent Valuation Opinion

In Intellectual Ventures II v. Sprint Spectrum, Case No. 2:17-cv-00662-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. April 11, 2019), Judge Roy Payne denied defendants' motion to exclude patent valuation opinions by Dr. Douglas A. Chrissan. Defendants argued that Dr. Chrissan was not sufficiently qualified to perform patent valuation "as he does not have any ‘experience with patent valuation whatsoever.'" Slip op. at 1. The basis for the denial was because Dr. Chrissan had served in a similar role in another case between some of the same parties; defendants had raised the same challenge there as they did in this motion; and the court had concluded that Dr. Chrissan was "sufficiently qualified in the [other] case to perform an analysis that is very similar to the analysis conducted here." Id. The court noted that, because of his earlier experience in the other case, "Chrissan has even more experience than he did before." Id. at 2.

The court also noted: "while Defendants challenge the reliability of Chrissan's opinions, the Court concludes that cross-examination is the appropriate mechanism to raise these challenges and that Defendant's have not shown that Chrissan's opinions are so unreliable that they should be excluded." Id. The court rejected defendants' contention that Dr. Chrissan's patent valuation analysis, in this case, added a step to the previous analysis that made his opinion unreliable, but again the court found that cross examination was the more appropriate way to resolve this issue. More specifically: "Chrissan evaluates the technical value of a group of Ericsson patents, a group of patents that were asserted in the 577 case, and the presently asserted patents. (Dkt. No. 296 ¶¶ 8–€“167, 175–87, 189–201.) Chrissan compares the technical value of the Ericsson patents to the technical value of the patents asserted in the 577 case. (Dkt. No. 296 at ¶¶ 208–09.) Chrissan then compares the Malibu patents to the presently asserted patents to reach a technical valuation for the presently asserted patents, which Defendants argue is an additional step of analysis that did not exist in the previous case. (Dkt. No. 296-5 at ¶¶ 210–11.) The Court concludes that this additional step does not make Chrissan's opinions unreliable and that any concerns with his approach are more appropriate for cross examination." Id. at 2-3.