§Why CasetextPricing

SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Strike Opinions of Samsung's Expert, Dr. Michael Caloyannides, Regarding Alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android and GreenPower-on-Android Systems, and for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Invalidity with Respect to Those Systems

11 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,235 times   224 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

    550 U.S. 398 (2007)   Cited 1,517 times   168 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in an obviousness analysis, "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it"

  3. Graham v. John Deere Co.

    383 U.S. 1 (1966)   Cited 3,152 times   48 Legal Analyses
    Holding commercial success is a "secondary consideration" suggesting nonobviousness

  4. Poweroasis v. T-Mobile

    522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 347 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee had the burden to come forward with evidence to prove entitlement to an earlier filing date when it was undisputed that a certain reference was invalidating prior art

  5. Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.

    654 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 123 times
    Finding "based on the facts of this case" that slip and fall expert's incorrect assumption about location of fall was proper subject for cross examination

  6. Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.

    587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 113 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “an analysis of obviousness ... may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill [which] do[es] not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”

  7. In re Kotzab

    217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 117 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for a patent to be obvious, "there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant."

  8. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc.

    407 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 65 times
    Holding district court erred in not considering a reference that post-dates the priority date when it is relevant to what "was known in the art at the relevant time"

  9. Bear Ranch, L.L.C. v. Heartbrand Beef, Inc.

    885 F.3d 794 (5th Cir. 2018)   Cited 39 times
    Upholding the fee award

  10. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.

    800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 38 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Stating that once the petitioner meets its initial burden of going forward with evidence that there is anticipating prior art, the patent owner has "the burden of going forward with evidence either that the prior art does not actually anticipate, or . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art." (quoting Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,578 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37