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

E.D. Tex.

SK nexilis Co., Ltd. v. Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00539 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2026)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00539, Dkt. No. 370
Decided
April 17, 2026
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER re 142145270] Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Reports
Length
14 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 are Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Reports of Dr. Quinn Horn (“Horn Motion”), Dkt. No. 145, Motion to Strike Portions of the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Quinn Horn (“Supplemental Horn Motion”), Dkt. No. 270, and Motion to Exclude Under Daubert and Strike Certain Expert Testimony of Ms. Lauren Kindler (“Kindler Motion”), Dkt. No. 142. All three are fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 183, 203, 214; Dkt. Nos. 281, 286, 294; Dkt. Nos. 185, 201, 224. Plaintiff SKN has retained Dr. Horn as its technical expert, and Ms.