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

E.D. Tex.

GeoDynamics, Incorporated v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2018)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:17-cv-00371, Dkt. No. 229
Decided
September 30, 2018
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - denying 115 MOTION to Strike OR EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF JOHN T. HARDESTY
Length
8 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.

Defendant moves to exclude certain testimony of John Hardest y, Plaintiff’s Vice President of Technology. Def.’s Mot. to Strike [Dkt. # 115]. Defendant contends Hardesty should not be allowed to testify regarding his testing of liners from the accused products, and that his test procedure is unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993) and its progeny. Moreover, Defendant contends Plaintiff’s other ex- perts may not testify regarding any conclusions they reached based on Hardesty’s testing.