Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

St. Lawrence Communications LLC v. ZTE Corp.

Area of Law:

Patent Law

Grounds:

Defendant Motorola moved to strike the expert reports of Drs. Ogunfunmi and Sinha retained by Plaintiffs on the grounds that they are not based on sufficient facts and data and are not the product of reliable principles and methods.

Outcome:

Denied

Analysis:

At the outset, the court noted that the parties reached an agreement with respect to Dr. Sinha, so the only issue before the court is the report of Dr. Ogunfunmi. Slip op. at 1-2.  The court first considered Defendant Motorola’s arguments regarding Dr. Ogunfunmi’s opinions on Qualcomm source code.  Id. at 2.  Notwithstanding the contention that the opinions should be stricken for failure to include sufficient analysis explaining how such source code meets the limitations of the corresponding claims, the court held that the charts provided by Dr. Ogunfunmi identified specific portions of source alleged to infringe on a claim-by-claim basis and that was sufficient.  Id.  Motorola next argued that Dr. Ogunfunmi provided conclusory opinions regarding the “reference code,” lacking any support that the “reference code” and the Qualcomm code are functionally he same and implement the algorithms corresponding to the functionality covered by the asserted claims in functionally the same way.  Id.  The court noted that the opinions on the “reference code” are largely ancillary to his opinions regarding Qualcomm source code.  Id.  The court further noted that Dr. Ogunfunmi has indicated that he reviewed the relevant code and reached a conclusion that the “reference code” and Qualcomm source code are functionally the same and implement the asserted claims in functionally the same way.  Id. at 3.  By reasoning that striking the report would not be appropriate and that Defendant Motorola is free to vigorously cross examine the witness at trial, the court denied the motion.  Id.