Showing results 1-6 of 6.

Cases that cite: MarcTec, LLc v. Johnson & Johnson

  MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP. v. SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 7/21/2015

Finally, defendants submit plaintiffs knew or should have known their expert's opinion fell well short of the Daubert standard. ... This court determined that his entire expert report was not based on any reliable methodology,[103] and strongly criticized his entire infringement analysis, both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents for both patents, as conciusory, without analysis of how each claim element read on or was met by the accused ride.[104]

Cited 0 times

  GENBAND US LLC v. METASWITCH NETWORKS CORP. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 1/9/2016

"The inquiry envisioned by Rule 702 is . . . a flexible one," but, in Daubert, the Supreme Court held that the Rules also "assign 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." ... "The reliability prong [of Daubert] mandates that expert opinion `be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and . . . be more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief.'"

Cited 0 times

  DIGITAL REG OF TEXAS, LLC v. ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 3/9/2015

An exclusion of expert testimony under Daubert does not in most cases trigger a finding of litigation misconduct; however, it may if the circumstances are "sufficiently egregious." ... Adobe contends that this case is exceptional because Digital Reg (1) proposed objectively unreasonable claim constructions; (2) offered unreliable and unreasonable expert opinion; (3) engaged in litigation misconduct with respect to two fact witnesses; and (4) was only seeking nuisance value settlements.

Cited 0 times

  THORNE RESEARCH, INC. v. ATLANTIC PRO-NUTRIENTS, INC. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 1/30/2017

The Court has discretion to exercise its Daubert gatekeeping role at summary judgment by excluding a proffer of expert testimony that is clearly deficient.[4] ... In an Order dated September 26, 2016, the Court gave the parties time to engage in limited expert discovery on the issue of crystallinity in accordance with Rule 702 prior to the Court's decision of Thorne's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Cited 0 times

  IN RE ANDROGEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/30/2012

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, "before admitting expert testimony a court must consider: (1) whether the expert is qualified to competently testify regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) whether the methodology used to reach his conclusions is sufficiently reliable; and (3) whether the testimony is relevant, in that it assists the jury to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue." ... Similarly, Dr. William Barr, Solvay's expert in the Underling Litigation, testified that "the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention include the unique and unexpected pharmacokinetic profile, as well as the low incidence of skin irritation" [Doc.

Cited 0 times

  IN RE ANDROGEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/30/2012

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, "before admitting expert testimony a court must consider: (1) whether the expert is qualified to competently testify regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) whether the methodology used to reach his conclusions is sufficiently reliable; and (3) whether the testimony is relevant, in that it assists the jury to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue." ... Here, Solvay's expert, Dr. Weiner, testified that someone skilled in the art "would understand that the concentration 1348*1348 of water and sodium hydroxide would be in the form of a 0.1 N solution because this is the concentration disclosed in Table 5 of the '894 Patent" [Doc. 555, Ex. 31].

Cited 0 times