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

E.D. Tex.

GREE, Inc v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00070 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2020)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:19-cv-00070, Dkt. No. 357
Decided
July 27, 2020
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 199 Opposed SEALED PATENT MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF EXPERT TESTIMONY PURSUANT TO DAUBERT filed by GREE, INC
Length
7 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 Plaintiff GREE, Inc.’s (“GREE”) Motion to Exclude Portions of Expert Testimony Pursuant to Daubert (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 199). Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED- IN-PART AS MODIFIED and DENIED-IN-PART. I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY On February 27, 2019, GREE filed a Complaint for patent infringement against Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) alleging that Supercell infringes U.S. Patent Nos.