Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

April 24, 2013

WBIP, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
KOHLER CO., Defendant

Page 171

For WBIP, LLC, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Andrea B. Reed, LEAD ATTORNEY, David A. Simons, K & L Gates LLP - MA, Boston, MA; Michael E. Zeliger, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, Boston, MA.

For Kohler Co., Defendant: Steven M. Bauer, Thomas Hoehner, William D. Dalsen, PRO HAC VICE, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jinnie Reed, Micah W. Miller, Safraz W. Ishmael, Proskauer Rose LLP, Boston, MA.

For Kohler Co., Counter Claimant: Steven M. Bauer, Thomas Hoehner, William D. Dalsen, PRO HAC VICE, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jinnie Reed, Proskauer Rose LLP, Boston, MA.

OPINION

Page 172

ORDER

Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge.

Defendant's motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 76 and 79) and to exclude expert testimony (Docket No. 82) were denied by a Court Order entered on April 8, 2013, " with memorandum and order to follow." The Court now publishes the subject memorandum and order.

I. Background

Plaintiff WBIP, LLC (" WBIP" ) filed suit against defendant Kohler Co. (" Kohler" ) in March, 2011, alleging infringement of two of its patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,314,044 (" the '044 patent" ), entitled " Marine Emissions Control" and issued on January 1, 2008, and U.S. Patent No. 7,832,196 (" the '196 patent" ), entitled " Electronic Emissions Control" and issued on November 16, 2010. Both patents are directed to marine power generators which include in their exhaust systems a catalyst component to reduce exhaust emissions. Plaintiff asserts that several models of Kohler's " Low Carbon Monomide (CO) Gas Marine Generator" infringe those patents.

The Court issued a Markman Order on August 14, 2012.

II. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

A. Standard

The admission of expert evidence is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which codified the Supreme Court's holding in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.,509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its progeny. See United States v. Diaz, 300 F.3d 66, 73 (1st Cir. 2002). Rule 702 charges a district court with determining whether: 1) " scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," 2) the expert is qualified " by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" to testify on that subject, and the expert's proposed testimony, 3) is based upon " sufficient facts or data," 4) is the product of " reliable principles and methods" and 5) " applies the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.