REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Strike Portions of the Expert report and to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Adam Porter Regarding the Invalidity of U.S. Patent 8,112,504
Holding that expert's testimony could not support a finding of obviousness where "testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to [the expert's] belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so"
Finding existence of genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether prior art taught away from the claimed invention based on express cautionary statement in prior art along with two expert declarations expressing skepticism in the art