Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Pact XPP Technologies, AG v. Xilinx, Inc., et al, No. 2:07-cv-00563 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2012)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:07-cv-00563, Dkt. No. 345
Decided
April 25, 2012
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER - Xilinxs and Avnets Motion to Exclude Dr. Tredennicks Opinion on Inducement (Dkt. No. 187) is DENIED
Length
3 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is defendants Xilinx Inc.’s and Avnet Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Tredennick’s Opinion on Inducement (Dkt. No . 187, filed May 27, 2011). Having considered the arguments of the parties, the motion is DENIED. APPLICABLE LAW An expert witness may provide opinion testimony if “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the tr ier 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 tes…