Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al, No. 2:17-cv-00718 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2019)

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 Traxcell Techonologies, LLC’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Verizon’s Designated Experts Dr. Shoemake and Mr. Rysavy. (Dkt. No. 309.) Traxcell argues that several different opinions presented within Dr. Shoemake’s and Mr. Rysavy’s reports should be excluded. First, Traxcell argues that Dr. Shoemake improperly reads a limitation into Claims 1–11 of the ’388 Patent that the second processor must be in the network. (Dkt. No. 309 at 3–4, 11–12.) Second, Traxcell argues that Dr.