13 Cited authorities

  1. Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems

    308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 236 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
  2. Koito Manufacturing Co., v. Turn-Key-Tech

    381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 126 times
    Holding that a challenger failed to meet its burden of proving a prior art reference anticipated the patent claims when it "failed to provide any testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate to the jury how that reference met the limitations of the claims"
  3. B. B. Naturverpackungen v. Biocorp

    249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 129 times
    Holding that district court properly admitted competing scientific testimony and stating that "it would contravene fundamental principles of due and fair process to withhold evidence of disparate scientific opinion relevant to the findings—in this case of infringement vel non—required of the jury
  4. Zenith Electronics Corp. v. PDI Communication Systems, Inc.

    522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 97 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether prior art was in public use on basis of witness testimony, documentary evidence, patentee's admissions
  5. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc.

    935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 137 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a party who chooses not to cross-examine a witness on an issue cannot later "recoup for its failed litigation strategy"
  6. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

    645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Addressing the defenses of waiver and equitable estoppel
  7. TI Group Automotive Systems (North America), Inc. v. VDO North America, L.L.C.

    375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that the term "pumping means" in a patent directed to fuel pump assembly technology was not a means-plus-function limitation as the limitation recited not only a pumping means, but its structure, location, and operation
  8. Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson

    725 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded expert testimony that was not included in the expert report because "[a]n expert witness may not testify to subject matter beyond the scope of the witness's expert report unless the failure to include that information in the report was substantially justified or harmless."
  9. Digital Reg of Tex., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.

    No. C 12-1971 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Excluding expert report but allowing expert "to submit a revised damages report curing [] the problems identified in [the court's] order"
  10. 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.

    889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although "an accused infringer cannot defeat a claim of literal infringement or establish invalidity merely by pointing to similarities between an accused product and the prior art, . . . [a litigant may argue] that if a claim term must be broadly interpreted to read on an accused device, then this same broad construction will read on the prior art."
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 64,042 times   481 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 2,530 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a witness to have personal knowledge