Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, No. 2:23-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2026)

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’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Expert Reports of Dr. Alfred Ducharme. Dkt. No. 260. The motion is ripe, see Dkt. Nos. 297, 327, and 359. Plaintiff seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Ducharme’s opening report that discuss invalidity, portions of Dr. Ducharme’s rebuttal report that discuss infringement, and the entirety of D r. Ducharme’s supplemental rebuttal report that discuss es infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,233,305 (“the ’305 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No.