Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc.

[[COURTLISTENER_SUBOPINION {"id":"11196566","type":"100trialcourt","part":"other","author":null,"source_field":"html_with_citations"}]]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 
MAGNOLIA MEDICAL 
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

                          Plaintiff, 
                                          Civil Action No. 24-1124-CFC 
                V. 
KURIN, INC., 

                        Defendant. 

                        MEMORANDUM ORDER 
     Pending before me is Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Kurin, Inc.’s motion 
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579
(1993) to preclude Plaintiff and 
Counter-Defendant Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. from offering at trial the 
opinions of its expert Dr. Carl D. Meinhart that
U.S. Patent No.  12,138,052
(the 
#052 patent) is invalid on anticipation and obviousness grounds.  D.I. 260; see also 
D.I. 262 at 1. 
     Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides: 
           A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, 
           skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the 
           form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent 
           demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not 
           that: 

           (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized 
              knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the 
              evidence or to determine a fact in issue; 
           (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; 
           (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and 
              methods; and 
           (d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of 
              the principles and methods to the facts of the case. 
Fed. R. Evid. 702.  In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that district courts must act 

as gatekeepers to ensure proffered expert scientific testimony meets the 
requirements of  Rule 702.  See
509 U.S. at 589
. 
     Kurin advances a host of arguments why Dr. Meinhart’s opinions are 
unreliable and unhelpful to the trier of fact and should thus be excluded under 
Rule 702.  D.I. 262 at 1-3.  I need only address one of those arguments because it 
identifies a fatal deficiency common to Dr. Meinhart’s anticipation and 
obviousness opinions. 
     Specifically, Kurin argues—and Magnolia does not dispute—that 
Dr. Meinhart “fails to account for the competing claim constructions [of ‘a housing 
that defines’] or identify which [of the competing constructions] his report purports 
to address.”  See D.I. 262 at 9; D.I. 323 at 3; see generally D.I. 298. 

Dr. Meinhart’s report (D.I. 265-2) is dated May 30, 2025.  As of that date, Kurin 

and Magnolia had not yet resolved their dispute over the construction of “a housing

that defines.”  See D.I.  153 at 12 (Goint claim construction brief dated March 10, 
2025, describing the dispute); D.I. 339 (e-mail to the Court explaining that Kurin 
agreed to Magnolia’s proposed construction no later than July 9, 2025).  Kurin had 
proposed giving the term its plain and ordinary meaning, whereas Magnolia had 
proposed construing it as “[a] casing that fixes or marks the limits of.”  D.I.  153 
at 12.  Although the parties have since agreed to Magnolia’s proposed 
construction, D.I. 339, Dr. Meinhart’s report neither adopts the agreed-upon 
construction nor discloses the construction upon which he relied, see D.I. 265-2. 
     This “failure to disclose a clear construction of each disputed claim element 
makes his report less than helpful to the trier of fact, in contravention of Federal 
Rule of Evidence 702.”  Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd.,
345 F. Supp. 2d 
431, 436
(D. Del. 2004); see also OneSubsea IP UK Ltd. v. FMC Techs., Inc.,
2020 
WL 7263266
, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Dec.  10, 2020) (excluding testimony under 
Rule 702 as irrelevant and unhelpful to the trier of fact in part because it “did not 
indicate that [the expert] was aware of the parties’ agreed construction of the claim 
term”); DataQuill Ltd. v. Handspring, Inc.,
2003 WL 737785
, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 
28, 2003) (excluding testimony under Rule 702 because “it [was] not clear what or 

whose interpretation of the claims [the expert] applied in his analysis”).  Because 

the term “a housing that defines” appears in both independent claims asserted, 
#052 patent at claims 1, 13, Dr. Meinhart’s failure to disclose the construction

upon which he relied is fatal, and I will therefore preclude him from offering at 
trial his anticipation and obviousness opinions with respect to the #052 patent. 
     NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington on this Third day of November in 
2025, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Kurin, Inc.’s Daubert Motion to 
Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Carl D. Meinhart (D.I. 260) is GRANTED 
and Dr. Meinhart is precluded from testifying at trial that the #052 patent is invalid 

on anticipation or obviousness grounds. 

                                                    (LAC, 
                                                              C      JUDGE