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
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"
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
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
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."
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
387 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D. Ill. 2005) Cited 103 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"