In a recently issued order, ALJ Lord denied Respondent’s motion in limine with respect to issues directed towards the weight of Complainants’ expert testimony rather than its admissibility but granted the motion with respect to previously undisclosed opinions of the expert being offered in violation of the Ground Rules.
In a recent order, ALJ Cheney denied Respondents’ attempt to supplement its exhibit list to include an email produced five months after the close of discovery, indicating a party’s obligation to supplement its discovery under Commission Rule 210.27(f) did not give it a right to have tardy discovery included on an exhibit list, introduced at an evidentiary hearing, or admitted into evidence.
The Commission recently found that the record evidence established direct infringement of method of use claims because there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of actual use by others.
ALJ Bullock recently denied Respondent’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement because the motion was based on an incorrect interpretation of his claim construction. Based on the dispute between the parties as to the meaning of the claim term, ALJ Bullock revisited his claim construction to clarify what he meant.
ALJ Bullock recently issued an opinion striking portions of Complainant’s expert report related to certain test results not included in Complainant’s responses to contention interrogatories, but made an exception for test results related to alternative designs that were not disclosed by Respondent until the end of fact discovery.