You are on page 1of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00828-RGA Document 657 Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20789

I
f
!
!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 08-828-RGA

ASKO APPLIANCES, INC. f/k/a AM APPLIANCE GROUP, INC.; ASKO APPLIANCES AB; DAEWOO ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and DIGITAL SYMPHONY CORP., Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Robert H. Badgley. (D.I. 579). Briefing on the motion is complete. (D.I. 580,581,582,596, 616). Defendants' Motion is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

As the Court noted in its claim construction opinion, the patents at issue relate to particular components of the motor and tub assembly in direct-drive, drum type washing machines. (D.I. 373 at 1). Dr. Badgley's expertise in the field of small motors is undisputed. He is qualified to testify about the technology at issue in this case. The Court agrees that Dr. Badgley is not qualified to opine on whether any reference comprises "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). This restriction is limited to the legal conclusion that a reference actually is "prior art." Dr. Badgley is qualified to testify as to what different references teach, and to differentiate and compare references. Dr. Badgley's testimony should be limited to topics relevant to the first phase of the trial. As for secondary considerations, Dr. Badgley is qualified to testify about copying, based on
1

Case 1:08-cv-00828-RGA Document 657 Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 20790

I
f !

his expert ability to review and compare washing machine motors, their development, and their installation. In contrast, it appears Dr. Badgley's proffered opinions on commercial success, long-felt need/failure of others/unexpected results, and industry praise and awards are based on his review of industry documents and the knowledge of LG' s corporate witness on the topic of objective indicia of non-obviousness, rather than his own expertise. Plaintiffs have made no showing that Dr. Badgley has expertise in the small motor industry, as opposed to his undoubted expertise in the development and engineering of small motors. Defendants' Motion is granted as to the secondary considerations of commercial success, long-felt need/failure of others/unexpected results, and industry praise and awards, but denied as to copying. This order is without prejudice. If any party believes that live testimony from Dr. Badgley would justify a different decision, upon request, the Court will hear such testimony at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, September 17, 2012, the day that the trial is scheduled to begin. The parties should notify the Court of any need for this proceeding at the pre-trial conference. Entered thist,V_ day of June, 2012.

' I
l I

~,i!-