39 results for 'cat:"Patent" AND cat:"Experts"'.
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Bell grants, in part, Honeywell International's motions in limine in its contract case against an electronics company. Testimony from the company's expert pertaining to the fact he believed certain patents had been withdrawn must be excluded, as he was not allowed to explain why he believed this due to attorney-client privilege.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Bell, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: 3:21CV506, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: patent, experts
J. Martinez denies the security software company's motion to strike portions of the Swedish corporation's expert's rebuttal declaration, which is related to the Swedish corporation's claim that the software company infringed on its patents. The expert gave his opinions in response to the declaration of the software company's expert witness and the software company chose not to address the Swedish corporation's opinions at the hearing.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Martinez, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv353, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts, Discovery
J. Chun partially denies the global semiconductor's motion to exclude the qualitative apportionment opinions of the fabless semiconductor company's expert, Lauren R. Kindler, in a patent lawsuit. Kindler's qualitative apportionment opinions are sufficiently reliable.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv1503, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Damages, experts
J. Kasubhai dismisses the adhesive manufacturing company's invalidity expert from the software company's lawsuit, which alleges that the adhesive manufacturing company copied the protected design of the software company's patent for its serial number encoder, as the patent partially relates to systems for encoded and commissioned wireless radio frequency identification (RFID) devices. The expert's opinions that the patent claims are invalid because they do not comply with the "RFID for Dummies" patentability conditions are too conclusory to be valuable to the jury, because the expert does not analyze how each of the "RFID for Dummies" disclosures specifically explains the claim limitations to which they are meant to correspond.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Kasubhai, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 6:17cv1685, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Jury, patent, experts