Showing results 1-10 of 18.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification."

  MicroStrategy Inc. v. Business Objects, SA - Federal Circuit

Decided: 11/17/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Confronted first with the initial expert report, the district court properly concluded that, despite the rather obvious role that MicroStrategy's financial instability played in the company's ongoing struggles, Yurkerwich attributed all of the company's post 2000 losses solely to the alleged tortious conduct by Business Objects. ... To the contrary, the district court has an obligation to weigh the admissibility of expert evidence under the Federal Rules. "[U]nder the [Federal] Rules [of Evidence] the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."

Cited 17 times
Business models Computing output devices 

  MCKESSON AUTOMATION v. Swisslog Italia SPA - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 5/18/2010

Swisslog argues that the denial of its motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Book insofar as it pertains to an equivalency analysis of the PillPick System has resulted in a clear error of law under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... The parties have filed multiple objections, and responses thereto, in connection with the R & R. (D.I. 553; D.I. 554; D.I. 559; D.I. 561) Swisslog also seeks reconsideration of Judge Stark's decision not to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Wayne J. Book ("Dr.

Cited 1 times

  BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPANY, INC. v. SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES INC. - 4th Circuit

Decided: 8/22/2016

"In applying Daubert, a court evaluates the methodology or reasoning that the proffered scientific or technical expert uses to reach his conclusion; the court does not evaluate the conclusion itself," Schaefer, 325 F.3d at 240, although "conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another." ... Paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 of the Herrington Daubert Declaration and Paragraph 24 of the Herrington Lost Profits Declaration[35] have ample support in either Mr. Herrington's expert reports or his deposition testimony supplementing those reports.

Cited 0 times

  WRIGHT ASPHALT PRODUCTS CO., LLC v. PELICAN REFINING COMPANY, LLC - 5th Circuit

Decided: 5/29/2012

Pelican's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. King, (Docket Entry No. 88), is denied, but without prejudice to reassertion following a Daubert evidentiary hearing. ... Pelican's argument for exclusion is that Dr. King's expert testimony lacks the foundation required for admissibility under Daubert and Kumho.

Cited 0 times

  Gibson Guitar Corp. v. 745 LLC - 6th Circuit

Decided: 1/11/2012

Rule 702 relates to the introduction of expert testimony and codified the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, which held that the then-effective Rule 702 "clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories about which an expert may testify" and "assign[s] to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." ... On November 22 and 23, 2011, the Court held a hearing on claim construction in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), and, in anticipation of that hearing, the parties filed motions to strike and/or limit the testimony of expert witnesses who had submitted declarations and were expected to be called as witnesses (Docket Nos. 63 & 69).

Cited 0 times

  Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 6/22/2012

(11 Civ. 6697, Dkt. No. 563)) comprises a series of submissions made by plaintiff and various experts retained by plaintiff setting forth definitions of "data stream" consistent with that proffered by defendants here. ... At a conference prior to the Markman hearing, the Court notified the parties that if they wanted the Court to rely upon such tutorials as a form of extrinsic evidence (the equivalent of testimony or affidavit from an expert), they should take that into consideration in how they presented the tutorials (e.g., through an expert or through a lawyer).

Cited 0 times

  EASYWEB INNOVATIONS, LLC v. TWITTER, INC. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 3/30/2016

According to Twitter's expert, Paul Clark ("Clark"), "Twitter accepts messages for publication from a user in one (or a combination) of four formats: Tweets may be in text, and/or in one of the three supported image formats, JPG, PNG, and GIF." (Clark Noninfringement Report ¶ 163, Clark MSJ Decl. Ex. B.) Users can send tweets using a web browser, mobile applications, SMS ("Short Messaging Service"), or MMS ("Multimedia Messaging Service"). (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 35, 44, 50.) ... Cir. 2009) ("To satisfy the summary judgment standard, a patentee's expert must set forth the factual foundation for his infringement opinion in sufficient detail for the court to be certain that features of the accused product would support a finding of infringement under the claim construction adopted by the court, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-movant.");

Cited 0 times

  Microsoft Corporation v. DATATERN, INC. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 8/24/2012

Neither side has questioned the qualifications of the other's expert or suggested that there are Daubert issues with respect to their proffered opinions. ... The Court was therefore unable to make credibility determinations, evaluate how the experts' proffered constructions withstood live cross-examination, or hear the experts' responses to the Court's specific inquiries.

Cited 0 times

  LEVERAGED INNOVATIONS, LLC v. NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 9/14/2012

At the Markman hearing, the Court raised the issue of this temporal disconnect between the 1995 application (to which the patents-in-suit claimed priority) and the 2008 ProShares ETF, posited by defendants' expert as determining the relevant time period for analysis. ... This Court warned that if it disagreed with defendants' legal position, and maintained its view that the law requires the Court to ask what terms meant as of the priority date, then defendants would be left without expert support in this proceeding.

Cited 0 times

  APPLE, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 12/2/2011

Finally, Mr. Sherman, Samsung's design expert, considered both the 1994 Fidler/Knight Ridder Tablet and the HP Tablet (as well as other prior art available at the time of invention) and indicated that: "The flat clear surface is plainly disclosed by the HP Compaq Tablet PC TC 1000. ... As a preliminary matter, Samsung has separately moved to exclude the declaration of Apple's proffered industrial design expert, Cooper Woodring, on the ground that he lacks the experience and relevant knowledge to opine on the ordinary observer's perceptions of smartphones and tablet computers.

Cited 0 times