§Why CasetextPricing

Dynamic Applet Technologies, LLC v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. et al

RESPONSE to Motion re Opposed MOTION to Strike Portions of Zaydoon Jawadi's Expert Report regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,446,111

3 Cited authorities

  1. Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.

    503 F. Supp. 2d 819 (E.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 60 times
    Holding the differences between the two classes of products for which plaintiff attempts to rely on one infringement chart "weighs heavily in favor of striking the infringement contentions" against the product for which no chart is offered

  2. Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Belkin Intern., Inc.

    628 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Tex. 2008)   Cited 29 times
    Finding that Plaintiff did not have to explain how OFDM is a spread spectrum modulation technique in its Patent Local Rule 3-1 infringement contentions because expert opinion testimony after claim construction should address the issue

  3. Orion IP, LLC v. Staples, Inc.

    407 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Tex. 2006)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that a defendant should "informally or by motion" seek clarification of any ambiguity in a patentee's PICs