Showing results 1-10 of 23.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"See Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116 ("A court construing a patent claim seeks to accord a claim the meaning it would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.");"

  ART+ COM INNOVATIONPOOL GMBH v. Google Inc. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 4/28/2016

Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 2011 WL 5914033, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 28, 2011) ("Expert reliance on foundational facts supplied by Google's engineers can be proper so long as they testify to the foundational facts with firsthand knowledge."). ... The court may also make factual findings based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises."

Cited 1 times

  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

  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

  TOUCHCOM, INC. v. BERRESKIN & PARR - 4th Circuit

Decided: 10/29/2010

Accordingly, "a trial judge, faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, must conduct `a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.'" ... At the end of the day, however, a district court's decision with respect to the admissibility of expert scientific testimony "is always a flexible one, and the court's conclusions necessarily amount to an exercise of broad discretion guided by the overarching criteria of relevance and reliability."

Cited 0 times

  PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY v. McNEIL-PPC, INC. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 5/12/2009

As the title suggests, these reports supplemented the opinions submitted by the experts in December to include (1) opinions regarding the meaning of the term "low flexural stiffness" and tests conducted on the accused product, Supp. Exp. Reports, dkt. # 253, ¶¶ 32-73, and dkt. #257, ¶¶ 31-68; (2) opinions regarding whether "separate" meant "separable"; and (3) an additional opinion regarding the Gerlach Abstract that defendant contends is undisclosed prior art demonstrating both invalidity and inequitable conduct on plaintiff's part. ... #288, requesting that the court strike rebuttal and supplemental expert reports by Harold Heymann and Robert E. Cohen and additional proposed findings of facts will be granted because plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline for expert reports;

Cited 0 times

  Procter & Gamble Co. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 5/12/2009

As the title suggests, these reports supplemented the opinions submitted by the experts in December to include (1) opinions regarding the meaning of the term "low flexural stiffness" and tests conducted on the accused product, Supp. Exp. Reports, dkt. # 253, ¶¶ 32-73, and dkt. #257, ¶¶ 31-68; (2) opinions regarding whether "separate" meant "separable"; and (3) an additional opinion regarding the Gerlach Abstract that defendant contends is undisclosed prior art demonstrating both invalidity and inequitable conduct on plaintiff's part. ... # 288, requesting that the court strike rebuttal and supplemental expert reports by Harold Heymann and Robert E. Cohen and additional proposed findings of facts will be granted because plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline for expert reports;

Cited 0 times

  ENPLAS DISPLAY DEVICE CORPORATION v. SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR COMPANY, Ltd. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 12/22/2015

"A district court's decision to admit expert testimony under Daubert in a patent case follows the law of the regional circuit." ... Georgia-Pacific lists fifteen factors for an expert to consider, including, "the extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention; and any evidence probative of the value of that use," and "the amount which a prudent license—who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention—would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit."

Cited 0 times

  FITNESS ANYWHERE LLC v. WOSS ENTERPRISES LLC - 9th Circuit

Decided: 3/6/2017

In particular, WOSS emphasizes that its original interrogatory response cites the "all elements rule" (i.e., that every claim limitation must be met in order for there to be infringement), that TRX addressed the extent to which each element infringed in its expert reports, and that, as a prophylactic measure, WOSS served third supplemental responses to TRX's non-infringement interrogatory on September 19, 2016, which additionally clarified its non-infringement theories. ... Specifically, TRX points out that its supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, served July 26, 2016, identify "[a]ll individuals identified in the reports of TRX's testifying experts" and that the opening report of its damages expert, Ms. Kimberly Schenk, identified each of the disputed witnesses as people with whom she had discussions and/or relied on.

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