STC.UNM v. Intel Corporation

Filing 158

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF ON REQUEST FOR LIVE EXPERT TESTIMONY AT THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING re 155 Response, 147 Reply, filed by STC. UNM. (Pedersen, Steven)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LAS CRUCES DIVISION
STC.UNM,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 1:10-cv-01077-RB-WDS

v.
INTEL CORPORATION
Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF ON REQUEST FOR
LIVE EXPERT TESTIMONY AT THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
Both parties spent a day each deposing each other's expert on the issue of claim
construction, and relied on the various opinions and admissions in their respective briefs.
It is specious for Intel now to say that expert testimony would not be useful at the claim
construction hearing. Further, the Federal Rules recognize the importance of having live
testimony at a hearing in lieu of deposition testimony when a witness is available. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(4)(E). Here, Intel has indicated in its response (at 1), that it can
bring its expert to the hearing. Since the witnesses can be available, they would assist the
court with live testimony regarding the technology and its application to the claims as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Such testimony is recognized by the
Federal Circuit as proper. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (commenting that live expert testimony at a claim construction hearing
“serves the permissible purposes of aiding our understanding of the technology and in
helping us view the patent through the eyes of the skilled artisan.”).

Dated: November 2, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Steven R. Pedersen
Rolf O. Stadheim
Joseph A. Grear
George C. Summerfield
Keith A. Vogt
Steven R. Pedersen
STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
400 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
Chicago, Illinois 60611
[phone]

Deron B. Knoner
KELEHER & MCLEOD, P.A.
201 Third Street NW, 12th Floor
PO Box AA
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
[phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff STC.UNM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: The undersigned certifies that on the 2nd day of
November, 2011 the foregoing was filed electronically through the CM/ECF system,
which caused all parties or counsel to be served by electronic means.
/s/ Steven R. Pedersen

2