Judge Hanen denied the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify a defense expert due to her prior work testing products which included the testing of products by the plaintiff.
Judge Horan granted the motion to exclude some of the defendant’s expert’s opinions, and part of the defendant motion to exclude portions of the plaintiff’s experts’ testimony.
There were five motions to strike and one motion to supplement which raised interesting issues regarding damages opinions and supplementation of expert reports, among other things.
These three orders resolved motions to exclude expert testimony in a recent trial before Judge Albright.
The issue was the admissibility of an internet survey on likelihood of confusion in this trademark case, and opinions based on it.
It’s a cat and dogfight over whether plaintiff Cat and Dogma’s experts could go for a walk in Judge Yeakel’s courtroom.
As always, there may not be sufficient context to fully appreciate the rulings, but they are still worth reviewing (and there are a lot).
Defendant challenged the plaintiff’s technical and damages experts in this Austin patent infringement case.
The issue was whether a plaintiff had to produce its experts’ reports and depo transcripts from a prior case.
Plaintiff won four of its seven challenges to this expert’s opinions.