Fujitsu Limited et al v. Netgear, Inc.

Filing 302

ORDER denying 284 Motion to exclude improperly disclosed opinions. Deft. granted until 2/2/09 to submit an expert report response to the only the doctrine of equivalence opinions. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B Crabb on 1/8/09. (rep) Modified text on 1/9/2009 to correct date to submit expert report from 2/9/09 to 2/2/09. (llj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------FU JIT S U LIMITED, LG ELECTRONICS IN C . and U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION, ORDER Plaintiffs, 0 7 - cv -7 1 0 - b b c v. N ET G EA R , INC., D e f e n d a n t /C o u n t e r c la i m a n t . --------------------------------------------O n November 18, 2008, defendant NETGEAR, Inc. filed a motion to exclude im p ro p erly disclosed opinions from plaintiffs' expert, dkt. #284. In its motion, defendant con tends that the portions of the reply expert report filed by plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Rhyne, regarding doctrine of equivalence opinions should be excluded from the case because those op inio ns were not disclosed in Rhyne's initial expert report. At the time defendant filed its m o tio n , dispositive motions were due within a week. Defendant argues that allowing plaintiffs to use Rhyne's reply report would unfairly prejudice it because it would not have tim e to do discovery or create supplemental expert reports to address Rhyne's doctrine of equ ivalence opinions.

1

H ow ever, since the filing of defendant's motion, several of the case's deadlines have been adjusted, including the dispositive motion deadline, which was extended to February 2 7 , 2009. Because the dispositive motion deadline was extended by 3 months, defendant has had, and continues to have, time to conduct the discovery necessary to address Rhyne's d octrin e of equivalence opinions. Moreover, on December 16, 2008, the parties filed a joint m otion to permit plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint and to submit the s up p lem en tal expert reports plaintiffs provided on October 24, 2008. Dkt. #297. The m o tio n, which was granted on December 17, also provided defendant the opportunity to file addition al expert reports in response to plaintiffs' October 24, 2008 supplemental reports. T herefore, several deadlines have been adjusted and extended to insure that the parties receive the time necessary to properly address the breadth of issues in this case. Acco rdingly, defendant will suffer no prejudice from Rhyne's doctrine of equivalence o p in io n s. I will deny defendant's motion as to its request that paragraphs 2, 35, 136 and 1 8 5 of Rhyne's reply expert report be excluded from this case. However, I will grant defendan t an opportunity to file an expert report response to the doctrine of equivalence op inio ns in paragraphs 2, 35, 136 and 185 of Rhyne's reply expert report.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that 1 . The motion to exclude improperly disclosed opinions from plaintiffs' expert and

2

for other relief, dkt. #284, filed by defendant NETGEAR, Inc. is DENIED as to its request that paragraphs 2, 35, 136 and 185 of Rhyne's reply expert report be excluded from this case. 2. Defendant will be GRANTED until February 2, 2009, to submit an expert report resp o nse to only the doctrine of equivalence opinions in paragraphs 2, 35, 136 and 185 of R hyn e's November 14, 2008 reply expert report. E n tered this 8t h day of January, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3