Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Company, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:15-cv-10154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
Focus Products v. Kartri: Judge Engelmayer disregarded defendants’ untimely motion to exclude expert testimony because the court had not invited it.
Defendants Kartri Sales Company, Inc. and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. were affected because the court disregarded their motion seeking to exclude plaintiffs’ expert James A. Roberts’s testimony. The ruling did not decide the admissibility of that testimony.
What happened
In Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Company, Inc., the defendants asked the court to exclude plaintiffs’ expert James A. Roberts from testifying about trademark and trade-dress infringement. They argued that Roberts lacked relevant hospitality-market expertise and used unreliable methods.
The defendants said Roberts’s opinions did not adequately address professional buyers, product functionality, secondary meaning, or the likelihood of confusion. The opinion does not decide whether those arguments were correct.
Judge Engelmayer ruled that the motion was uninvited and untimely because the court had only acknowledged the defendants’ letter and had not granted permission to file the motion. The court therefore said it would disregard the motion.
The detailed version
- Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Company, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-10154
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 7, 2021
Background
Defendants Kartri Sales Company, Inc. and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. filed a replacement motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards associated with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. They sought to prevent plaintiffs’ expert, James A. Roberts, from giving some or all of his proposed testimony concerning trademark and trade-dress infringement.
The defendants argued that Roberts’s qualifications focused on individual consumer behavior rather than business-to-business purchases by professional buyers in the hospitality industry. They also challenged his methodology, including his failure to conduct a customer survey, his opinions about product functionality and secondary meaning, and his analysis of whether professional buyers would likely be confused about the source or sponsorship of the accused product. The motion requested exclusion of testimony on those subjects and on whether the HOOKLESS brand had acquired secondary meaning.
Court’s Action
The court stated that, contrary to the defendants’ claim, it had not granted them permission to file the motion. The court said it had merely acknowledged receipt of the defendants’ letter. Because the deadline for motions in limine had expired on April 15, 2021, the court found the motion uninvited and untimely and stated: “This motion is thus uninvited and untimely. The Court therefore will disregard it.” The court did not decide whether Roberts’s testimony satisfied Rule 702 or whether the defendants’ arguments about his qualifications and methodology were correct.
Disposition and Effect
The court disregarded the defendants’ replacement motion. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the requested exclusion of Roberts’s testimony, and it does not resolve the underlying trademark or trade-dress issues.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.