Judge Payne’s order dealt with three experts. With respect to the first, his order dealt with two issues – whether an expert relied on technical information a party failed to disclose during fact discovery, and whether the expert improperly engaged in claim construction. The second was similar, raising a untimely disclosure issue, while the third raised questions of specificity and timing of alleged prior art references.
Judge Albright issued a set of rulings in chart form from the pretrial conference held last week, including rulings on motions for summary judgment, expert testimony, and motions in limine. Of note is the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to priority date, finding that it was estopped from raising the issue based on its stipulation filed in the IPR proceedings.
Judge Payne denied two of the motions, and reserved the third for a forthcoming hearing, concluding that assessments as to the witness’ credibility and correctness were for the factfinder, not the court. As to the third motion, however, the court noted that there were substantial issues with the expert’s use of prior reports.
This complex order addressed motions for complete and partial summary judgment, as well as a motion to partially stay the case and to strike portions of an expert’s opening report. The case was stayed as to all the asserted claims of two of the patents, the motion to strike portions of the expert report was granted, and the motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.
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.