In a recent decision, the PTAB decided to institute an IPR despite Patent Owner’s claims that Petitioner engaged in gamesmanship and asserted references and combinations that were cumulative of each other by relying on several prior art references that were at issue in the IPR petitions to prove invalidity in the ITC.
A recent ITC decision illustrates how prosecution history estoppel works to limit design patent infringement claims, expanding significantly on the 2014 Pacific Coast decision by the Federal Circuit.
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 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.