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-00311 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2021)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:19-cv-00311, Dkt. No. 191
Decided
February 11, 2021
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 124 SEALED MOTION Defendant Supercell Oys Motion to Strike Portions of Gree, Inc.s Technical Expert Dr. Robert Akl Regarding Previously Undisclosed Infringement Opinions
Length
18 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 Defendant Supercell Oy’s (“Supercell”) Motion to Strike Portions of GREE, Inc.’s Technical Expert Dr. Robert Akl (“Dr. Akl”) Regarding Previously Undisclosed Infringement Opinions (“Motion”). Dkt. No. 124. Supercell’s Motion seeks to strike opinions in Dr. Akl’s expert report for three allegedly previously undisclosed and untimely infringement theories with respect to claim elements “game pieces” and “skill level information.” These theories regard (1) “Clan XP” as the claimed “Game Piece” in Cl…