§Why CasetextPricing

Brigham Young University et al v. Pfizer et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Vern Norviel

17 Cited authorities

  1. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 12,574 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

  2. 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"

  3. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 965 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  4. Dodge v. Cotter Corp.

    328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 503 times
    Holding district court has discretion to limit information, but abused discretion in severely and unreasonably limiting information

  5. Ralston v. Smith Nephew Richards, Inc.

    275 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001)   Cited 502 times
    Holding no abuse of discretion to disregard later affidavit executed at the time critical to avoid summary judgment

  6. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

    774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 455 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ ” and the “actual inventor's skill is irrelevant” to the obviousness inquiry

  7. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.

    550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 173 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court abused its discretion in permitting a witness not qualified as an expert in the pertinent art to testify as an expert regarding issues of noninfringement or invalidity

  8. Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Laboratories

    271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)   Cited 197 times
    Finding that it is the patentee's obligation to present a detailed basis of its evidence such that the district court can evaluate whether it supports a finding of infringement

  9. Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp.

    391 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2004)   Cited 118 times
    Finding reasoning to the best inference reliable under Daubert and Kumho

  10. Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc.

    82 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1996)   Cited 149 times
    Holding that a district court properly allowed an expert to testify despite an "extremely low" opinion of his credibility because "the weight and credibility of [his] testimony were issues for the jury"

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,547 times   251 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 4,694 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted