SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.
125 F. Supp. 3d 579
E.D.N.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff markets the SAS system; SAS LE is a learning edition limited to nonproduction use with reverse engineering restrictions.
- Defendant created World Programming System (WPS) intended to mirror SAS functionality and achieve output/input correspondence.
- Defendant allegedly used SAS LE for production purposes and reverse engineered it; court previously found a breach of the SAS LE license.
- Parties used expert Storer to assess whether WPS could have developed as it did without SAS LE and potential delays in development absent SAS LE.
- Defendant moves to exclude Storer under Daubert v. Merrell Dow and Rule 403; plaintiff argues Storer’s expertise and methodology are valid.
- Court denies broad Daubert challenge but excludes certain portions under Rule 403, notably Storer’s claim that SAS is not an interpreter or compiler.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Storer’s testimony is admissible under Daubert | Storer is qualified and his methods are reliable. | Storer relies on incomplete data and lacks applicable expertise. | Daubert admissibility denied; testimony generally admissible |
| Whether Storer’s testimony is relevant and helpful | Opines on WPS being a clone and impractical without SAS LE to educate the jury. | Some opinions are not helpful and merely summarize evidence. | Two-part helpfulness found; some portions may be confusing and limited |
| Whether Storer’s methodology is valid given his experiential approach | Experience-based analysis is acceptable and reliable for this case. | Method should be more quantitative or data-driven; risk of incomplete data. | Methodology admissible; evaluation focused on three core considerations instead of strict Daubert factors |
| Whether certain statements by Storer (SAS not an interpreter/compiler; WPS clone) should be excluded under Rule 403 | Such statements educate the jury by clarifying concepts. | Those statements are confusing and lack probative value. | 403 partial grant; exclude interpretation claim but keep clone/copy concept for understanding |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1999) (tests for admissibility of non-scientific expert testimony flexible)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (establishes gatekeeping for expert reliability and relevance)
- United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 1994) (trial court broad discretion in admissibility under Rule 702)
- Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 377 (4th Cir. 1993) (strict test for expert qualifications when challenged)
- Tyger Const. Co. Inc. v. Pensacola Const. Co., 29 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 1994) (considerations for reliability include testing, peer review, error rate, general acceptance)