Pretrial limitations on deposition testimony ordered

Posted on January 16, 2007 by Morris James LLP

McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 17, 2006.

Robinson, J.  Pretrial order regarding disputed deposition designations.

The Court ordered all references to the ‘164 patent and claims be stricken based upon pretrial rulings regarding the permissible scope of fact testimony vis-à-vis the functionality of the accused products and infringement.

It is inappropriate to ask a fact witness with no prior knowledge of the patent to answer a question such as: “Does the Facets System operate to perform the steps described in claim 1?”  Remaining questions to witness skilled in the art as to whether the accused product performs a certain function or a certain step may be viewed by the jury.

Remaining objections to be discussed at the next day 8:30 a.m. for those depositions going forward the same day.

Because of unusual circumstances, the Court will consider request to require presence of 30(b)(6) witnesses either live, through video conferencing or re-deposition.
Tags: , , ,
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/admin/trackback/126608
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.