Page:MGE UPS Systems Inc. v. GE Consumer and Industrial Inc. (5th Cir., 20 July 2010).djvu/10

No. 08-10521 GE/PMI’s Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert objections to Dr. Prescott’s testimony and permitted him to testify at trial. After hearing his testimony, the district court concluded that it should be stricken in its entirety, determining that Dr. Prescott’s conclusions regarding MGE’s lost profits were based on insufficient facts and data, including unsupported assumptions regarding MGE’s lost market share and service pricing. The district court also found Dr. Prescott had no experience in assessing hypothetical reasonable royalty rates and that his proffered hypothetical reasonable royalty rate was not based on objective analysis.

Once Dr. Prescott’s testimony was stricken, MGE offered a final witness, MGE general manager Michael O’Brien, who presented testimony relating only to MGE’s reasonable royalty damages. O’Brien was never designated as an expert on damage calculations. The district court ultimately found his testimony insufficient to permit MGE to offer a jury instruction on reasonable royalty damages.

MGE’s only remaining evidence of damages was DX 37, the bar graph indicating PMI’s total revenue from 2001 through 2004. Though this was an exhibit prepared by GE/PMI, the district court admitted the exhibit during Dr. 10