Showing results 1-10 of 15.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"We have frequently stated that the words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.""

  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

  Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 3/30/2011

More specifically, the Third Circuit in In re Paoli 767*767 R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir.1994), made clear "that it is the judge who makes the determination of reasonable reliance, and that for the judge to make the factual determination under Rule 104(a) that an expert is basing his or her opinion on a type of data reasonably relied upon by experts, the judge must conduct an independent evaluation into reasonableness." ... The parties disagree as to the nature of the patients included in the Silva study and as to the results. Plaintiff, relying on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Benditt, asserts "in 1988, Silva reported that bi-ventricular pacing was a better way to treat postoperative patients" and that the patients included those with "class II heart failure symptoms."

Cited 1 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

  COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 8/24/2016

Under the Daubert reliability prong, parties "do not have to demonstrate to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessments of their experts are correct, they only have to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that their opinions are reliable." ... The parties also seek to exclude a number of experts in their respective Daubert Motions.

Cited 0 times

  BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS INC. v. ARCTIC CAT INC. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 2/24/2017

Arctic Cat has filed two motions to exclude. One motion addresses Bombardier's damages experts, Claude Gelinas and Keith R. Ugone, as well as some opinions of Bombardier's technical experts, Robert Larson and Kevin Breen, (Arctic Cat's Mot. to Exclude Bombardier Damages & Other Expert Test., Mar. 25, 2016, Docket No. 656); and the other motion addresses other opinions by Robert Larson and Kevin Breen, as well as those of Dr. Christine Raasch. (Arctic Cat's Mot. to Exclude Dr. Raasch & Other Test., Mar. 27, 2016, Docket No. 685.) ... The Supreme Court in Daubert outlined particular factors for courts to consider in assessing reliability, such as (1) whether the opinion is based on a methodology that is susceptible to testing, and whether it has been tested; (2) whether the opinion has been subjected to peer review; (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error associated with the methodology; and (4) whether the relevant scientific community has generally accepted the methodology.

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

  Medtronic, Inc. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, GUIDANT CORPORATION - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 3/30/2011

The parties disagree as to the nature of the patients included in the Silva study and as to the results. Plaintiff, relying on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Benditt, asserts "in 1988, Silva reported that bi-ventricular pacing was a better way to treat postoperative patients" and that the patients included those with "class II heart failure symptoms." ... (D.I. 189 at 342:9-13) (see also id. at 345:1-7, 348:3-5, 372:3-24, 373:13-17) Dr. Berger's testimony lacks sufficient foundation; his expert report reflects the same failure to execute a proper doctrine of equivalents analysis as his testimony.

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

  Lear Automotive Dearborn, Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 3/11/2010

Beyond the four corners of the written instrument, the Court also may consider "intrinsic evidence" — consisting of "the complete record of the proceedings before" the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), including "the prior art cited during the examination of the patent" — and "extrinsic evidence" — which includes "expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." ... In any event, Lear has not identified any expert testimony or "particularized evidence" in support of an appeal to the doctrine of equivalents, at least as to this aspect of its claims of infringement, and any "conclusory statements" it might offer on this point "do not raise any genuine issues of material fact" that could defeat JCI's entitlement to summary judgment.

Cited 0 times