NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7
NETFUEL, INC.,
8 Case No. 5:18-cv-02352-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION TO STRIKE; GRANTING 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,
11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 256, 258 Defendant. 12
13 The Parties have filed motions to exclude portions of the opposing sides’ expert testimony. 14 The Court finds these motions suitable for consideration without oral argument. See N.D. Cal. 15 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the Parties’ papers, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to 16 strike portions of Dr. Almeroth’s expert reports and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike 17 portions of Dr. Rubin and Mr. Bratic’s expert reports.1 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 A. Factual Background 20 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringed two of its patents. The Patents-in-Suit—U.S. 21 Patent Nos. 7,747,730 (the “’730…