If law has one guiding principle, it is that words matter. The precise choice of verb or adjective can be the difference between friend and foe, peace and war, victory and defeat.
You've read Faust, you get it.
We saw a great example of this principle this week in I-Mab Biopharma, v. Inhibrx, Inc., C.A. No. 22-276-CJB (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2024) (Mem. Order). I-Mab was prought under the DTSA which allows damages to be calculated as either (1) damages for actual loss plus unjust enrichment or (2) a reasonable royalty. 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(B).
The defendants—who unsurprisingly preferred a lower damages figure—served an expert damages report that noted that plaintiff's "actual damages" might be "zero." The plaintiff moved to exclude the opinion under Daubert, arguing that their damages theory was based on a reasonable royalty, and thus an opinion that their "actual damages" might be zero was neither here nor there, and was unduly prejudicial.
The defendant countered that the expert had meant that "Dr. Manning is 'not offering an opinion on actual losses, but instead references ‘actual damages’ as reflective of damages I-Mab may be awarded'—in other words, according to Defendants, the zero damages opinion is an opinion that Plaintiff’s reasonable royalty damages may be zero." Id. at 8 (quoting D.I. 364 at 23).
Judge Burke, however, found the expert's choice of words dispositive, and struck the so-called "zero damages opinion"
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants are ignoring the “actual words” that Dr. Manning used, as he did not opine in the zero damages opinion that Plaintiff’s “reasonable royalty damages” are zero (nor do Defendants point to anywhere else in Dr. Manning’s report where he opined that Plaintiff’s reasonable royalty damages should be zero). Nor do Defendants explain why an opinion that Plaintiff’s “actual damages . . . are zero” should be interpreted to actually mean that Plaintiff’s “reasonable royalty damages are zero.” Moreover, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Dr. Manning does not seem to provide any facts or analysis in support of the zero damages opinion. Thus, Defendants have not sufficiently explained how, inter alia, Dr. Manning’s zero damages opinion is relevant in light of Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary; therefore it must be excluded.
Id. at 9 (internal citations omitted).
