throbber
Case 2:15-cv-00037-RWS Document 389 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 23914
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-CV-00037-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD.,
`ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`BLUETIDE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`COUNTRY HOME INVESTMENTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`The Court enters this separate Order memorializing the Orders on nondispositive motions
`
`in the Combined Order and Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. 388. For the reasons previously
`
`explained, id., IT IS ORDERED as follows:
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Expert Opinions Regarding Stricken Prior Art References And
`Undisclosed Invalidity Theories (Dkt. 275) (“Elbit’s Motion to Strike Invalidity
`Opinions”) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
`
`Defendant Hughes Network Systems, LLC’s Motion to Strike Elbit’s ’874 Patent
`Infringement Contentions (Dkt. 276) (“Hughes’ Motion to Strike Infringement
`Contentions”) is DENIED.
`
` Defendant Hughes’s Motion to Exclude Elbit’s New Priority Date Contentions for the
`’073 Patent (Dkt. 277) (“Hughes’ Priority Date Motion”) is GRANTED.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker (Dkt. 312) (“Elbit’s
`Infringement Expert Motion”) is DENIED.
`
`Defendant Hughes Network Systems, LLC’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of
`Stephen G. Kunin (Dkt. 313) (“Hughes’ Motion to Exclude Patent Office Expert
`Testimony”) is GRANTED.
`
`Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions Offered by Christopher Martinez
`(Dkt. 314) (“Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Damages Expert Testimony”) is DENIED.
`
`1
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00037-RWS Document 389 Filed 06/20/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 23915
`
`(7)
`
`(8)
`
`(9)
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Experts Opinions Regarding Previously-
`Undisclosed Non-Infringing Alternatives (Dkt. 315) (“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Non-
`Infringing Alternatives”) is GRANTED.
`
`Hughes’ Motion to Strike Portions of Elbit’s Expert Reports that Rely on Previously-
`Unidentified Infringement Theories (Dkt. 316) (“Hughes’ Motion to Strike Infringement
`Opinions”) is DENIED.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendants’ Damages Expert, Mr. W.
`Christopher Bakewell (Dkt. 319) (“Elbit’s Motion to Exclude Damages Expert
`Testimony”) is DENIED.
`
`(10) Defendants Hughes Network Systems, LLC And BlueTide Communications, Inc.’s Motion
`to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (Dkt. 372) (“Defendants’ Motion to Transfer”) is
`DENIED.
`
`(11) Defendants Hughes Network Systems, LLC And BlueTide Communications, Inc.’s Motion
`to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Proper Venue (Dkt. 373) (“Defendants’ Motion
`to Stay”) is DENIED AS MOOT as to Defendants’ request to stay pending resolution of
`motion to transfer under § 1406 and DENIED as to Defendants’ request to stay pending
`resolution of motion to transfer under § 1404.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket