Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inc v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division

September 12, 2017

NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., ET AL.

          ORDER

         Before the Court is Network-1 Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude an Opinion and the Testimony of Juniper's Technical Expert Dr. Cameron H. G. Wright. Doc. No. 817. The Court held a hearing on this Motion on June 19, 2017. The Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”) accuses Defendants[1] of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6, 218, 930 (“the ‘930 Patent”). The ‘930 Patent is titled “Apparatus and Method for Remotely Powering Access Equipment Over a 10/100 Switched Ethernet Network.” See ‘930 Patent.

         The ‘930 Patent discloses, for example:

delivering a low level current from the main power source to the access device over the data signaling pair, sensing a voltage level on the data signaling pair in response to the low level current, and controlling power supplied by the secondary power source to the access device in response to a preselected condition of the voltage level.

Id. at 2:8-14.

         A disclosed embodiment describes using a fixed voltage drop associated with a “resistive termination” to identify equipment that cannot receive remote power. Id. at 3:2-11 (“If a fixed voltage level is detected then the remote equipment contains a dc resistive termination . . ., and this equipment is identified as unable to support remote power feed.”).

         Dr. Cameron H. G. Wright (“Dr. Wright”), Juniper's technical expert, generally opines that Juniper does not infringe the ‘930 Patent.

         APPLICABLE LAW

         Daubert Motion

         Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

         The trial judge has a gate-keeping role to ensure that expert testimony is relevant and reliable. Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Indeed, “[t]he proponent [of the expert testimony] need not prove to the judge that the expert's testimony is correct, but she must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony is reliable.” Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th. Cir. 1998). “The reliability prong [of Daubert] mandates that expert opinion ‘be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and . . . be more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief.'” Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d 452, 459 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Curtis v. M & S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 668 (5th Cir. 1999)).

         Factors to consider in determining whether a proposed expert's methodology is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.