§Why CasetextPricing

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Exclude IN PART THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL JEFFORDS 247 / Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Daubert Motion to Exclude In-Part the Testimony of Mr. Michael Jeffords

17 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,228 times   224 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,146 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 ’s presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity

  3. I4I Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.

    598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 639 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party's quarrel with the facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert's opinion

  4. Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

    757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 453 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when deciding whether the means test is triggered, the question is whether "in view of the specification, prosecution history, etc.," the patent "still provide sufficient structure such that the presumption against means-plus-function claiming remains intact"

  5. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.

    626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 399 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court "was not obligated to provide additional guidance to the jury" beyond directing the jury to apply the "ordinary meaning" of a claim term

  6. Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.

    317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 275 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, once a court makes a definitive evidentiary ruling on the record, a party need not renew an objection to preserve appeal rights

  7. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.

    318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)   Cited 743 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit” is a relevant factor for the jury to consider

  8. Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.

    609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 172 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding patentee's licenses with third parties for the patents-in-suit did not support hypothetical negotiation damages award because "the two lump-sum licenses provide no basis for comparison with INSC's infringing sales. Neither license describes how the parties calculated each lump sum, the licensees' intended products, or how many products each licensee expected to produce."

  9. Grain Processing v. Am. Maize-Products

    185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 230 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that customers would have found a particular claim limitation "irrelevant," so the patentee could not rely on that limitation for the second Panduit factor

  10. Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.

    387 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2005)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that expert witnesses format for cases in which he previously had been involved "was uninformative . . . their format made impossible [] any meaningful investigation of [the expert's] background as an expert witness"

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,581 times   251 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard