39 results for 'cat:"Patent" AND cat:"Experts"'.
J. Menendez grants summary judgment to the defendant ladder maker in its competitor's suit alleging patent infringement. No reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant's ladders infringe a limitation in the plaintiff's patent requiring that "a substantial amount of the first bracket is disposed within a cavity defined by the first component" of the ladder. The defendant ladder maker's motion to exclude expert testimony is also granted in part, since the expert failed to apply the court's claim construction in his opinions regarding the cavity limitation.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Menendez, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 0:20cv2497, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts
J. Tunheim denies both the university and the cell phone companies' motions to exclude expert testimony in the university's suit alleging infringement on its patents for cellular data transmission technology. The companies' damages expert's report is not so speculative as to warrant exclusion, and her purported use of a report with undisclosed methodology as a single data point for her own evaluation is a factual dispute better suited as a subject for trial testimony. The university's damages expert's report, similarly, is not excludable because of his use of the companies' entire LTE and 5G wireless subscriber base to calculate a reasonable royalty, although the expert's failure to properly apportion the royalty base is "highly concerning." Questions about whether the expert should have accounted for the age of the patents in suit should be decided by the jury, and his choice of one of 200 licensing agreements as a comparison in his negotiation analysis, while also concerning, is adequately explained to avoid exclusion.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 0:14cv4672, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, 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. Tunheim affirms a magistrate judge's order denying the patent defendants' motions to strike portions of one expert's report and the entirety of another's supplemental report. The magistrate judge did not err in only addressing the challenge to the first expert's opinions on preclusion grounds, since that was the only argument raised. As to the second expert, the magistrate judge appropriately weighed the relevant factors.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 0:14cv4672, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts
J. Kasubhai denies the adhesive manufacturing company's motion for a new trial for the software company's lawsuit alleging 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 devices. The adhesive manufacturing company claims that a new trial is warranted because the court improperly excluded the opinion of its invalidity expert, but the adhesive manufacturing company does nothing to prove that the court's thorough review of the expert's testimony should not have resulted in his exclusion.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Kasubhai, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 6:17cv1685, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts
J. Kasubhai denies the adhesive manufacturing company's renewed motion for judgment in the software company's lawsuit alleging 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 devices. The adhesive manufacturing company claims that Dr. Engels' testimony qualifies for the substantially different evidence exception to the mandate rule, but Dr. Engels' testimony is not materially different because it does not alter the language of the patent.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Kasubhai, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: 6:17cv1685, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts
J. Kennelly partially grants multiple motions from both parties in this patent infringement suit. A data management company claims Amazon infringed on three of its patents for data storage protocols, and in turn Amazon brought counterclaims for non-infringement, unpatentability, unenforceability and invalidity. In a complex ruling, the court partially grants and partially denies both parties’ motions for summary judgment for portions of one other’s claims. The court also denies Amazon’s motion to strike analysis from one of the data management company’s experts, but grants the data management company’s motion to strike the analysis from one of Amazon’s experts.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kennelly, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 1:18cv8175, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts, Technology
J. Saylor partly grants a major technology company’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of a smaller technology company suing it for willful patent infringement. The smaller company’s technical expert is not qualified to claim that the larger company’s product’s commercial success is directly or largely due to its allegedly patent-infringing features.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Saylor, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: 1:19cv12551, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts, Technology
J. Leung denies the declaratory judgment seeker's motions to strike portions of an expert report, expert disclosure, diligence documents and undisclosed testimony and partially grants its motion to compel production of notebooks kept by the patent holders' principal. The requested notebooks are relevant to the judgment seeker's claim that its product did not infringe the patent holders' patents, they need not be communications to be responsive, and it would not be unduly burdensome or untimely to produce them at this point, particularly since the judgment seeker first learned of them in the context of the principal's trial testimony. A motion to strike new infringement theories fails because no new infringement theory has actually been disclosed. A motion to strike a summary of anticipated expert testimony similarly fails because the summary does not alter the existing infringement theories. Finally, spreadsheets regarding the disputed software are demonstrative evidence and need not be excluded at this time.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Leung, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv700, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, experts, Discovery
J. Stoll finds that the district court should have granted a company's motion to exclude an expert witness in patent claims concerning a method for manufacturing molded chokes. Reversed in part.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Stoll, Filed On: October 16, 2023, Case #: 2022-1873, Categories: patent, experts
J. Doughty denies a pretrial request by a baby products manufacturer that its competitor should be precluded from introducing any expert testimony or opinions beyond the scope of the expert reports already submitted for trial of the competitor’s patent infringement suit. A litigant may object at trial to any expert testimony or opinions it deems is beyond the scope of the expert’s report or outside the scope of the expert’s deposition. However, the baby products makers must be judicious in making such objections. The trial court will subtract any time spent resolving unfounded objections from the trial time allocated to the litigant that presents or prolongs an unfounded objection.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Doughty, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 3:17cv821, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Jury, patent, experts
J. Burroughs partially grants judgment as a matter of law in favor of a pharmaceutical company being sued by another pharmaceutical company for patent infringement. Eli Lilly and Co.'s motion "is granted insofar as the patents-in-suit are invalid on the basis of inadequate written description and lack of enablement." However, its motion is denied as to the issue of future lost profits. The other company's expert based his future lost profit calculations on actual data as well as on Lilly's projections, and explained how he arrived at his own projections. The evidence that the jury relied on was not "impermissible speculation and guesswork," as argued by Lilly.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Burroughs, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv12029, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Damages, experts
J. Bredar denies a chemicals manufacturer its motion to strike the expert testimony of another such company in a patent infringement case. The manufacturer argues that the owner of the other company does not have the expertise to be testifying about the matter at hand, combustion promoters. However, based on the owner’s education and experience, he is qualified to testify.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Bedar, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2636, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, patent, experts