Indianapolis, Indiana – In a patent infringement case, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the Southern District of Indiana has denied defendants’ request to strike the report of an expert that the plaintiff had attached to a brief. The expert’s report contained a “readily-available summary of the infringement allegations.” The defendants had cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as grounds to strike the expert’s report. The court in its order, however, noted that the Rule cited only applied to pleadings, not briefs, and therefore, was inapplicable. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff had submitted the report for a limited purpose and “The Court will, therefore, only consider the report for that limited purpose, and only to the extent authorized by Federal Circuit precedent.”
This is a patent infringement case involving industrial wood veneer technology. The patent litigation attorneys of Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, represent Capital Machine Company in this litigation. The Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News Blog has previously blogged about the case. There are six patents at issue, all of which have been issued by the US Patent Office:
5,562,137 Method and Apparatus for Retaining a Flitch for Cutting
5,694,995 Method and Apparatus for Preparing a Flitch for Cutting
5,701,938 Method and Apparatus for Retaining a Flitch for Cutting
5,819,828 Method and Apparatus for Preparing a Flitch for Cutting
5,678,619 Method and Apparatus for Cutting Veneer from a Tapered Flitch
7,395,843 Method and Apparatus for Retaining a Flitch for Cutting
The Case No. is 1:09-cv-00702-JMS-DML, and the Order is below.