Daubert/Experts : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

Home > Daubert/Experts >

Use of opposing party's expert's transcript is not automatically barred

Posted on November 5, 2008 by Amy A. Quinlan

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 02-1512-SLR; Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., No. 03-120-SLR; In re Tricor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-340-SLR, November 5, 2008.

Robinson, J. The Court provides pre-trial guidance as to when a party may use the deposition testimony from the opposing party’s expert who is not expected to testify at trial.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Evidence

Patent law experts are precluded from trial

Posted on January 29, 2008 by Amy A. Quinlan

Vanderbilt University v. ICOS Corporation, C.A. No. 05-506-SLR, December 20, 2007.

Robinson, J. The Court rules that the testimony of legal experts will not be permitted at trial.

Tags: Daubert/Experts

Claim construction provided only tentative until prayer conference

Posted on January 6, 2008 by Amy A. Quinlan

Nice Systems, Inc. et al. v. Witness Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 06-311-JJF, December 14, 2007.

Farnan, J. The court issues a Memorandum on Tentative Claim Construction.

Tags: Claim Construction, Daubert/Experts

Sanctions imposed due to contact with employee of opposing party's affiliate

Posted on January 6, 2008 by Amy A. Quinlan

Microsoft Corp. v. Alcatel Business Systems et al., C.A. No. 07-090-SLR, December 18, 2007.

Robinson, J. Motion to disqualify law firm is granted in part and denied in part.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Disqualification of Counsel, Sanctions

Experts' testimony is limited in golf ball case

Posted on December 20, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, C.A. No. 06-091-SLR, November 20, 2007.

Robinson, J. The Court grants plaintiff’s Daubert motion. Defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s expert is granted in part.

Tags: Daubert/Experts

Defendant is enjoined from marketing its DHA products

Posted on December 5, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Martek Biosciences Corporation v. Nutrinova Inc., et al., C.A. No. 03-896-GMS, October 30, 2007.

Sleet, C.J. The court denies defendant’s motions for JMOL of noninfringement of one patent and invalidity of a second patent . It granted in part JMOL of invalidity of a third patent. It further grants plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of infringement of the first patent and for a permanent injunction.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Equitable Defenses and Remedies, Estoppel, Exceptional Case/Willfulness, Infringement, Invalidity, JMOL/New Trial, Waiver

Court limits expert testimony in Daubert rulings

Posted on September 7, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, C.A. No. 05-747-SLR, August 23, 2007.

Robinson, J. The Court grants two Daubert motions and denies third without prejudice. Fourth Daubert motion is unopposed.

Tags: Daubert/Experts

Claim construction rehash resulted in non-infringement ruling in telecommunications case

Posted on May 4, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Telecordia Technologies, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., Nos. 04-875-GMS, 04-876-GMS, May 1, 2007.

Sleet, J. Summary judgment of non-infringement was granted with respect to the '306 patent and denied as to a second patent. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not anticipated was granted in part. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not invalid due to lack of enablement was granted. Defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '306 patent for failure to disclose the best mode was denied.

Tags: Claim Construction, Daubert/Experts, Infringement, Invalidity, Summary Judgment

Summary judgment of non-infringement in stent case was granted.

Posted on April 23, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. et al. v. Cordis Corp. et al., Nos. 03-283-SLR, 03-1138-SLR, Apr. 4, 2007.

Robinson, C.J. Cordis’ renewed motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted. Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude evidence of testing by Cordis’ expert Dr. Sabatini and related testimony was denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of validity due to no anticipation was granted.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Infringement, Invalidity, Motion to Strike/Preclude, Summary Judgment

Expert's testimony about non-infringement expert's opinion was precluded

Posted on April 10, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Inline Connection Corp. et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc. et al., Nos. 02-272-MPT, 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Feb. 5, 2007.

Thynge, J. Defendants’ motion to preclude certain testimony from an infringement expert was granted in part and denied in part.

Continue Reading...

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Discovery, Infringement, Motion to Strike/Preclude

Damages expert's testimony was limited in part

Posted on March 13, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Inline Connection Corp., et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., D. Del. No. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Jan. 16, 2007.

Thynge, J. A motion in limine to limit expert testimony was granted in part. A motion for summary judgment to preclude damages for non-infringing lines was denied.

Continue Reading...

Tags: Damages, Daubert/Experts, Motion to Strike/Preclude, Summary Judgment

An untimely expert report was limited

Posted on March 13, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Inline Connection Corp., et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., D. Del. No. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Jan. 8, 2007.

Thynge, J. A motion to preclude invalidity expert’s first report based on unreliable methods was discussed in separate opinion. A motion to dismiss a supplemental report was granted in part as untimely.

Continue Reading...

Tags: Daubert/Experts, In Limine, Invalidity

Summary judgment of non-infringement granted

Posted on January 25, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.

Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion based on infringement is denied. Defendants’ non-infringement motions are granted. Continue Reading...

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Infringement, Summary Judgment

A few in limine motions granted before jury trial; most denied

Posted on January 24, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. 04-1371–JJF Sept. 20, 2006.

Farnan, J. Court grants 3 of 19 motions in limine filed by defendants, and 1 1/2 out of 5 motions filed by plaintiff.

Tags: Damages, Daubert/Experts, In Limine, Invalidity, Motion to Strike/Preclude

Evidentiary rulings after bench trial

Posted on January 18, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Ivex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 03-891-JJF July 25, 2006.

Farnan, J. After a bench trial, the court sustained about 10 out of 30 evidentiary objections after post-trial briefing.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Motion to Strike/Preclude, Waiver

Insufficient means plus function evidence results in partial summary judgment of non-infringement

Posted on January 15, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

McKesson Information Solutions, LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 5, 2006.

Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is denied due to genuine issues of material fact. Defendant’s motion is granted in part where plaintiff’s experts have not performed a structure to structure comparison as required in a means plus function infringement analysis. It is otherwise denied.

Tags: Claim Construction, Daubert/Experts, Infringement

Partial summary judgment granted to both sides regarding infringement

Posted on January 12, 2007 by Amy A. Quinlan

Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR, Feb. 22, 2006.

Robinson, J. Infringement and noninfringement summary judgment motions granted in part, denied in part.

Tags: Claim Construction, Daubert/Experts, Summary Judgment

Delaware Patent Litigation Report

Morris James LLP

500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 • P.O. Box 2306 •

Wilmington, DE 19899-2306

Morris James LLP's Delaware Patent Litigation Report, published by the lawyers and attorneys of the Morris James Law Firm, offering services related to IP litigation, electronic discovery and patent litigation to the cities of Wilmington, Dover, Newark, Milford, Seaford and Middletown.

Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

Published By
Morris James LLP

Short tagline goes here

Use of opposing party's expert's transcript is not automatically barred

Patent law experts are precluded from trial

Claim construction provided only tentative until prayer conference

Sanctions imposed due to contact with employee of opposing party's affiliate

Experts' testimony is limited in golf ball case

Defendant is enjoined from marketing its DHA products

Court limits expert testimony in Daubert rulings

Claim construction rehash resulted in non-infringement ruling in telecommunications case

Summary judgment of non-infringement in stent case was granted.

Expert's testimony about non-infringement expert's opinion was precluded

Damages expert's testimony was limited in part

An untimely expert report was limited

Summary judgment of non-infringement granted

A few in limine motions granted before jury trial; most denied

Evidentiary rulings after bench trial

Insufficient means plus function evidence results in partial summary judgment of non-infringement

Partial summary judgment granted to both sides regarding infringement