In a recently issued pair of orders, ALJ Lord denied both Respondents’ and Complainants’ motions in limine to exclude certain expert testimony based on concerns regarding qualifications and admissibility because there was no danger of jury confusion.
In a recent order, ALJ Lord granted Complainant’s motion in limine and excluded certain expert testimony as precluded by her ground rules because the testimony included more than a short statement of disagreement and amounted to the introduction of new substantive opinions that were not previously disclosed.
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.
In a recent Order, ALJ Bullock granted Respondents’ motion in limine to exclude a published article written by a former district court judge who previously served as Complainant’s economic expert because the article violated his Ground Rules governing expert testimony and identifying declarations as not admissible as substantive evidence.
While ALJ McNamara’s recent order suggests that respondents may be permitted to add defenses in the midst of discovery if the complainant is aware of the defense, it remains important for respondents to coordinate with co-respondents so the pleadings reflect all applicable defenses as soon as possible.