§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude IN-PART THE TESTIMONY OF DR. JEFFREY CHASE 245 / Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Daubert Motion to Exclude In-Part the Testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Chase

30 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,206 times   224 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    517 U.S. 370 (1996)   Cited 5,342 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court

  3. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,698 times   164 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  4. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,119 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

  5. O2 Micro Intern. v. Beyond Innov

    521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,207 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants' arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction

  6. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

    669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1,029 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “flexible” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and reversing the construction of “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease”

  7. Acumed v. Stryker Corp.

    483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 302 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "defined on . . . an axis" was not a limiting term

  8. Eon Corp. v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.

    815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 203 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court erred in failing to construe the claim terms "portable" and "mobile" and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all claims because "when the claim terms are properly construed, no reasonable jury could have found that Silver Spring's electric utility meters infringe."

  9. Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems

    308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 254 times
    Holding that the preambles at issue — "point of origin," "angle of rotation," and "scale" — did not limit the scope of the digitizer invention but simply described features that necessarily exit in any coordinate system for a digitizer

  10. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.

    279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 204 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]here an accused infringer is clearly practicing only that which was in the prior art, and nothing more, and the patentee's proffered construction reads on the accused device, meeting burden of [establishing invalidity] should not prove difficult"

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,405 times   647 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37