Remove Expert Testimony Remove Litigation Remove Precedent
article thumbnail

Split CAFC: ‘Word Salad’ Expert Testimony Failed Under Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement Standard

IP Watchdog

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision affirming a district court’s finding that NextStep, Inc. failed to prove that Comcast Cable Communications infringed its patents.

article thumbnail

Sanctions for Failure to Comply With a Scheduling Order That Set Discovery Milestones

E-Discovery LLC

The principal function of a scheduling order is to move the case efficiently through the litigation process by setting specific dates or time limits for anticipated litigation events to occur. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule of stare decisis. at *3 (quotations and citation omitted).

Discovery 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Non-Testifying Consultant Subject to Discovery Where Testifying Expert Relied on Consultant’s Work

E-Discovery LLC

26(a)(2) governs discovery of expert testimony. For a testifying expert, one disclosable matter is the basis, facts, and data considered by the expert in forming an opinion. Tesla moved to compel the whole ball of wax identity, a deposition, all documents and communications, invoices, etc. Plaintiffs offered half a loaf.

Discovery 130
article thumbnail

Full Federal Circuit Grants Google’s Request for Rehearing of Precedential Ruling on Expert’s Damages Testimony

IP Watchdog

Judge Prost dissented-in-part from the panel opinion, stating that the majority’s opinion with respect to damages “at best muddles our precedent and at worst contradicts it.” against Google, whose appeal in part asked for a new trial on damages due to prejudicial error.