Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, No. 2:23-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2026)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00477, Dkt. No. 432
Decided
January 13, 2026
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 251 Defendants' MOTION to Exclude Opinions of Justin R. Blok. (Motion(s)251 terminated)
Length
9 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is Defendants ’ Motion to Exclude Opinions of Justin R. Blok. Dkt. No. 251. The Motion is fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 294, 335, 340. In the Motion, Defendants seek to exclude portions of Plaintiff’s damages expert’s opinions because he allegedly (1) bases his opinions on a litigation settlement license without understanding how it was calculated, and without apportioning out the value of six other included patents, (2) uses market data to estimate importation but fails to account for sales from pr…