---
title: "Telecommunications Expert’s Testimony on Business Matters Excluded"
meta:
  "og:description": "The telecommunications expert was not permitted to opine on economic and business matters, as he lacked the requisite expertise"
  "og:title": "Telecommunications Expert’s Testimony on Business Matters Excluded"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "The telecommunications expert was not permitted to opine on economic and business matters, as he lacked the requisite expertise"
---

# Telecommunications Expert’s Testimony on Business Matters Excluded

Posted on October 20, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

Plaintiff Calltrol Corporation (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on October 6, 2018, against LoxySoft AB and LoxySoft Inc. (together, “Defendants”), alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective economic benefit, unfair competition, false and deceptive practices.

Plaintiff sold call center software, hardware products, and related support services. LoxySoft Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of LoxySoft AB. In March of 2002, Plaintiff entered into an agreement (the “Reseller Agreement”) with LoxySoft AB that granted LoxySoft AB a license to market and resell certain call center products for which Plaintiff was a licensed distributor. LoxySoft AB agreed to purchase call center software products, software developer kits, and related support services from Plaintiff.

The Reseller Agreement (“RA”) stated that “[d]uring the term of this Agreement” LoxySoft AB “will not directly or knowingly indirectly participate in the development or commercialization of software products competitive to the [Plaintiff’s] Products.” The RA also provides “an initial term of two (2) years” and “thereafter automatically renewed for successive one (1) year periods (each a “Renewal Period”) unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms” therein, which included “written notice” to Plaintiff.Plaintiff alleged that Defendants began marketing and selling their own call center products and services (“Competing Products”) to Plaintiff’s customers, directly competing with the products and services they previously purchased and resold from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff further asserted that Defendants failed to provide written notice of their intent to terminate the RA.

To refute Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants offered the declaration of their purported expert, [Regis J. Bates Jr](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Regis-Bates/1530528). Plaintiff submitted a motion to strike the expert report of Bates.

## **Telecommunications Expert Witness**

[Regis J. Bates Jr.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Regis-Bates/1530528) has over 50 years of experience in the telecommunications systems, call center products, and predictive dialers. He is the founder of a full-service consulting and training firm specializing in telecommunications and computer convergence, has authored numerous books on telecommunications technologies—including Voice and Data Communications Handbook for McGraw-Hill—and served as a telecommunications manager (or in an equivalent role) for over 14 years across four organizations.

[Discover more cases with Regis Bates as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1530528&amp;pId=3).

## **Discussion by the Court**

#### **A. Bates’ Qualifications**

In his report, Bates averred that LoxySoft replaced Calltrol’s technology with publicly available tools, wrote and did not develop proprietary switching platforms or predictive dialers, and did not replicate Plaintiff’s Application Programming Interface (“API”). LoxySoft accessed only the limited code permitted under the RA. He further asserted that Calltrol’s product was increasingly obsolete and prone to failure, which made it commercially unreasonable for LoxySoft to continue aggressively marketing its product. Bates concluded his report by opining that LoxySoft did not misappropriate Calltrol’s trade secrets or reverse engineer its product.

Plaintiff sought to strike Bates’ opinion on the above-mentioned topics, arguing that Bates is “uniquely unqualified” to testify on the parties’ technologies.

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments and found Bates’ qualifications are sufficient to allow his opinion on the parties’ call center technologies, including predictive dialers and related software. However, Bates is not qualified to opine on economics or business matters. The Court likewise found Bates unqualified to opine on contractual obligations, including Defendants’ “best efforts” under the RA.

Aside from serving as an expert in only two breach-of-contract disputes, Bates is not a contractual expert, and contract interpretation is not a proper subject for an expert to opine on. 

In sum, neither Bates’ “skills, experience, training, nor education” provide him with specialized knowledge regarding a business’ profitability and viability, contractual interpretation—including a party’s “best efforts”—or the nature of the business relationship between two parties.

Because Bates lacked the requisite expertise in economics and business, and expert opinion is unnecessary for contract interpretation, the Court struck portions of Bates’ report addressing Calltrol and LoxySoft’s business relationship, Calltrol’s profitability, and LoxySoft’s “best efforts” under the RA.

#### **B. Reliability of Bates’ Expert Opinion**

The Court concluded that Bates’ analysis is sufficiently reliable under [Rule 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.)‘s flexible standards to permit his opinion on the parties’ call center technologies, including predictive dialers and related software.

First, Bates conducted a detailed breakdown of the predictive dialer capabilities included in the RA between the parties, using diagrams to illustrate the configurations of LoxySoft’s system when integrated with Calltrol’s software and the operability of Calltrol’s platform itself. He also presented a second diagram to detail LoxySoft’s model change in response to advancements in the call center industry, and a third diagram to highlight this broader industry shift away from old call center technologies to cloud-based services. Bates then explained how LoxySoft built its system on a publicly available algorithm and an open-source communications framework, rather than relying on Calltrol’s proprietary API or source code.

Finally, Bates reviewed Calltrol’s public website, along with the deposition testimony and affidavits from Calltrol employees, to demonstrate the obsolescence of Calltrol’s product, that prompted LoxySoft to transition to a more advanced internet-based platform.

While Bates arguably could have done more to analyze the parties’ call center software and could have provided more support for the conclusions he reached, the Court will not strike his opinion on those grounds.

#### **C. Relevance of Bates’ Expert Opinion**

Bates’ report details how LoxySoft used publicly available tools and technology, including an open-source communication framework, and confirms that LoxySoft did not have access to “any of the source code for the Calltrol products.”

This directly refutes Plaintiff’s claim that LoxySoft misappropriated Calltrol’s proprietary information to develop a competing or derivative product. Bates further details technical differences between Calltrol’s product and the technologies used by Defendants, demonstrating that Defendants’ development reflected “industry advancements, not competition.”

Because Bates’ report directly addresses the conduct alleged in the Complaint and provides clear technical analysis, its probative value is high and substantially outweighs any minimal risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, or the jury being misled under  [Rule 403](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403#:~:text=The%20court%20may%20exclude%20relevant,or%20needlessly%20presenting%20cumulative%20evidence.). Thus, the Court found Bates’ report—excluding areas outside of the scope of his expertise—is sufficiently relevant and admissible.

## **Held**

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the report of Regis J. Bates Jr.

## **Key Takeaway:**

Any such shortcomings in Bates’ methodology go to the weight of his opinion, not its admissibility. Furthermore, because Bates’ report is based on his years of experience rather than formulaic testing or methodology, the Court will not strike his report for failing to meet the _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ factors.

In conclusion, the Court found that Bates applied a reasoned, experience-based methodology consistent with Rule 702’s standards, rendering his analysis and technical opinions sufficiently reliable for the jury’s consideration.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/telecommunications-experts-testimony-on-business-matters-excluded/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/telecommunications-experts-testimony-on-business-matters-excluded/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/telecommunications-experts-testimony-on-business-matters-excluded/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/telecommunications-experts-testimony-on-business-matters-excluded/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/telecommunications-experts-testimony-on-business-matters-excluded/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)