Motion To Strike Expert Testimony Granted In Part

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.

Pretrial Rulings in Waco (including Priority Date)

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.

Motions To Strike Expert Testimony

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.

Motion For Summary Judgment Granted In Part

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.