`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 258-15 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 16703
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 258-15 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 16704
`Case 2:08-cv-00098-RSP Document 371 Filed 06/03/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 17005
`
`CARDSOFT, INC., et al.
`
`
`
`VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:08-CV-98-RSP
`
`Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Supplemental Expert Report of J.
`
`Tipton Cole (Dkt. No. 282, filed February 17, 2012). Defendants seek to strike Mr. Cole’s
`
`supplemental expert report on infringement because it introduces a new opinion on infringement
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. This opinion is allegedly improper because the doctrine of
`
`equivalents was not disclosed in CardSoft’s infringement contentions, and the expert does not properly
`
`apply the doctrine of equivalents. CardSoft argues that Mr. Cole’s supplemental report responds to
`
`non-infringement arguments that were not disclosed in Defendants’ interrogatory responses, and
`
`Defendants’ expert rebuttal report on infringement relies on theories that are foreclosed by the
`
`Court’s claim construction.
`
`Good cause does not exist for allowing the supplemental report. To the extent that
`
`Defendants’ expert offers previously undisclosed non-infringement positions, or advances
`
`opinions that are improper under the Court’s claim construction, such testimony or opinions will
`
`be excluded upon proper motion or objection at trial. CardSoft has already filed a motion to
`
`strike those opinions, and still has an opportunity to make objections at trial. Accordingly there
`
`is no good cause for the supplemental report. Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
