`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Richmond Division
`
`-V1
`
`DEC - 8 2015
`
`CLERK. U S DISTRICT COURT
`piCi-i\;o:;i), VA
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD
`et al.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action 3:14cv757
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`et al.
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`Having considered the Plaintiffs' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
`
`OPINION TESTIMONY OF BILL GERVASI
`
`(Docket No. 328),
`
`the supporting
`
`and opposing memoranda, and the oral argument before the Court on
`
`December 1, 2015, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' MOTION IN
`
`LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINION TESTIMONY OF BILL GERVASI
`
`(Docket No. 328)
`
`is granted in part and denied in part. Mr. Gervasi may testify as
`
`a
`
`fact witness about
`
`the terms of
`
`relevant
`
`JEDEC policies and
`
`practices and only as a fact witness, subject
`
`to NVIDIA laying a
`
`predicate foundation for his testimony. The motion is granted so that
`
`Mr. Gervasi may not
`
`testify as an expert
`
`regarding whether
`
`the
`
`Plaintiffs complied with JEDEC policies, because that testimony will
`
`not be helpful to the jury. The motion is granted as to what action
`
`JEDEC would have taken if Plaintiff had disclosed the '938 patent
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 564 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 35305
`
`because such testimony is speculative and not the proper subject of
`
`expert testimony.
`
`I t is so ORDERED.
`
`Richmond, Virginia
`
`Date: December ^ , 2015
`
`/s/ ML
`Robert E. Payne
`Senior United States District Judge
`
`
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
