D. Del. Holds that Determining the Royalty Base is a Relevance Issue, Not Daubert

The District of Delaware, Judge Richard G. Andrews presiding, in D&M Holdings, Inc.[1] v. Sonos, Inc., Civil Action 16-141-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2018) denied Plaintiffs' motion to strike opinions of Sonos' damages expert Michael Tate "on what the royalty base should be," viewing the issue raised by Plaintiffs' "as a relevance issue," not "a Daubert issue."

Plaintiffs argued that "Mr. Tate bases his opinions on his own conclusions about which of Defendant's products are infringing." The court points out that Mr. Tate is not a technical expert, but a damages expert. "He will not be allowed to render opinions at trial on which products infringe and which do not. … In particular, if Defendant's technical expert testifies that there can be no infringement unless there are at least four of Defendant's products, Mr. Tate may have a basis for his calculation of a royalty base based on that assumption." The court noted that the issue was not a Daubert issue, but one of relevance to be addressed, "as necessary, at trial."

[1] Plaintiffs include D&M Holdings Inc. d/b/a The D&M Group and D&M Holdings US Inc.