Showing results 1-10 of 19.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Assigning such a limited role to the specification, and in particular requiring 1321*1321 that any definition of claim language in the specification be express, is inconsistent with our rulings that the specification is "the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term," and that the specification "acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.""

  Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc. - Federal Circuit

Decided: 12/4/2014
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

We conclude that the expert testimony about which D-Link complains violated neither the rule from Garretson regarding apportionment, nor the evidentiary principle demanding an appropriate balance between the probative value of admittedly relevant damages evidence and the prejudicial impact of such evidence caused by the potential to mislead the jury into awarding an unduly high royalty. ... In short, where expert testimony explains to the jury the need to discount reliance on a given license to account only for the value attributed to the licensed technology, as it did here, the mere fact that licenses predicated on the value of a multi-component product are referenced in that analysis—and the district court exercises its discretion not to exclude such evidence-is not reversible error.[4]

Cited 27 times
Wireless networking Data transmission Shipping Commercial item transport and distribution Assistive technology 

  MarcTec, LLc v. Johnson & Johnson - Federal Circuit

Decided: 1/3/2012
District Court Decision: Excluded

Although we agree with MarcTec that exclusion of expert testimony under Daubert does not automatically trigger a finding of litigation misconduct, and in most cases likely would not do so, we find that the circumstances of this case were sufficiently egregious to support an award of attorney fees. ... In response, Cordis argues that the sums it expended on experts were only necessary because MarcTec "pressed forward after receiving documentary evidence that refuted its allegations, and because MarcTec had its experts proffer junk science, including a bogus theory about supposed temperature changes that were not capable of being detected and an unrealistic test having no relation to the accused product."

Cited 6 times
Implants (medicine) Interventional radiology Medical devices 

  In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 5/31/2007

For consideration by district courts in determining the reliability of expert testimony, the Supreme Court set forth the following non-dispositive, non-exclusive factors as "flexible" guidelines in Daubert: (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error associated with the technique along with the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. ... The admissibility of all expert testimony under Rule 702 is a preliminary question of law for the district court to determine pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), see Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786, and district courts have broad discretion when determining whether or not to admit expert testimony, United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 120 (2d Cir.2000).

Cited 3 times

  Sprint Communications Co. v. Vonage Holdings Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/7/2007

In Vonage's second supplemental response to this interrogatory, Vonage specifically "incorporate[d] by reference the February 28, 2007 Expert Invalidity Report of Frank R. Koperda and its accompanying exhibits and attachments, which inter alia set forth opinions that each asserted claim of . . . each of the patents-in-suit is not valid under one or more sections of Title 35 of the U.S.Code." ... Additionally, "when the patent holder relies on the doctrine of equivalents . . . the difficulties and complexity of the doctrine require that evidence be presented to the jury or other fact-finder through the particularized testimony of a person of ordinary skill in the art, typically a qualified expert, who (on a limitation-by-limitation basis) describes the claim limitations and establishes that those skilled in the art would recognize the equivalents."

Cited 2 times

  IN RE OMEPRAZOLE PATENT LITIGATION - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 5/31/2007

For consideration by district courts in determining the reliability of expert testimony, the Supreme Court set forth the following non-dispositive, non-exclusive factors as "flexible" guidelines in Daubert: (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error associated with the technique along with the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. ... The admissibility of all expert testimony under Rule 702 is a preliminary question of law for the district court to determine pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), see Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786, and district courts have broad discretion when determining whether or not to admit expert testimony, United States v. Feliciano, 223 F.3d 102, 120 (2d Cir.2000).

Cited 0 times

  Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Technologies, Inc. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 7/1/2011

I will then instruct the jury on applying the law to the facts as the jury finds them. While it is necessary that Ms. Breitzke's testimony be sufficiently tethered to the law so as to be relevant and reliable which will be addressed below-her lack of expertise in patent law does not affect her qualification as an expert on the electronic transaction industry or on point-of-sale technology. ... Before me now are SVS's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Due to Anticipation and Obviousness (D.I. 102), SVS's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claims 20, 22-31, and 33-38 Due to Lack of Written Description (D.I. 167), CAT's Motion for Summary Judgment of Validity (D.I. 109), and CAT's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Lori Breitzke (D.I. 107).

Cited 0 times

  STORED VALUE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. CARD ACTIVATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 7/1/2011

I will then instruct the jury on applying the law to the facts as the jury finds them. While it is necessary that Ms. Breitzke's testimony be sufficiently tethered to the law so as to be relevant and reliable — which will be addressed below — her lack of expertise in patent law does not affect her qualification as an expert on the electronic transaction industry or on point-of sale technology. ... Before me now are SVS's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Due to Anticipation and Obviousness (D.I. 102), SVS's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claims 20, 22-31, and 33-38 Due to Lack of Written Description (D.I. 167), CAT's Motion for Summary Judgment of Validity (D.I. 109), and CAT's Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Lori Breitzke (D.I. 107).

Cited 0 times

  ALTERA CORPORATION v. PACT XPP TECHNOLOGIES, AG - 9th Circuit

Decided: 8/21/2015

As with the "bus system" term, however, it is generally inappropriate to limit the scope of a claim based on enablement concerns, especially where, as here, the expert opinion offered by Altera does not attempt to demonstrate that the asserted claims are not enabled under the relevant standard, namely "that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to practice the claimed invention without `undue experimentation.'" ... It is also contradicted by the opinion of the court-appointed expert, Professor Wawrzynek, who stated at the claim construction hearing that a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time of the invention would be able to implement a bus system control that switches between protocols — for example, by switching between multiple state machines.

Cited 0 times

  MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 11/23/2010

"Daubert's list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case. ... Plaintiffs note that Dr. Meier, Defendant's expert in the prior Autotrader.com litigation, which involved some of the same patents at issue in this case, testified that "a database is an organized collection of information," thereby supporting Plaintiffs' construction.

Cited 0 times

  MYSPACE, INC. v. GRAPHON CORPORATION - 9th Circuit

Decided: 11/23/2010

"Daubert's list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case. ... Plaintiffs note that Dr. Meier, Defendant's expert in the prior Autotrader.com litigation, which involved some of the same patents at issue in this case, testified that "a database is an organized collection of information," thereby supporting Plaintiffs' construction.

Cited 0 times