Opinion
2:20-cv-01503-JHC
06-16-2023
NXP USA, INC., and NXP B.V., Plaintiffs, v. IMPINJ, INC., Defendant.
ORDER SUSTAINING IMPINJ'S OBJECTION TO CERTAIN TESTIMONY OF DAVID HAAS
John H. Chun, United States District Judge
On June 16, 2023, NXP's expert witness David Haas testified. After some crossexamination, outside the presence of the jury, Impinj objected to certain testimony by Haas. Impinj objected to Haas's testimony about the basis for his apportionment of 25% of value to read sensitivity improvements. According to Impinj, Haas's expert report provides only one basis for his 25% figure: Kindler's 25% figure in the co-pending California litigation. See Dkt. # 287-2 at 95. Based on Rule 26, Impinj asks the Court (1) to strike any testimony in which Haas purports to rely on any other source besides Kindler for his quantitative apportionment figure of 25%, and (2) that the Court provide an appropriate jury instruction.
The Court SUSTAINS the objection. In his report, Haas explains that he borrowed Kindler's 25% figure “as a proxy.” Dkt. # 287-2 at 95. He provides no other explanation for his quantitative 25% figure. Any testimony to the contrary strays beyond his expert report and violates Rule 26.
The parties shall meet and confer about an appropriate jury instruction. If the parties cannot agree, they may submit their proposed instructions for the Court's consideration. The parties should submit the proposed instruction(s) in a single document to be filed on the docket.