Infringement Expert’s “Parroting Claim Language” Not an Acceptable Methodology

The court granted defendants' motion in limine to exclude plaintiff's infringement expert and his report. "[Plaintiff’s infringement expert] did nothing more than try defendants’ products on various (unidentified) ear molds and state that defendants’ products infringed based on conclusory ipse dixit recitations of claim limitations with no explanation or analysis. . . . [He] never conducted any quantitative analysis (i.e., size, measurements, dimensions, or positioning) of the earbuds, headsets, and ear molds he examined. . . . [He] also never even identified which [of the 60] ear molds . . . he tested. . . . What justifies striking him at the end of the day is that his report merely parroting the claim language to find infringement will be unhelpful to the jury. Bald claim-ridden statements — with no analysis — that simply proclaim that defendants’ products infringe cannot help the jury in making their findings."

Plantronics, Inc. v. ALIPH, INC. et al, 3-09-cv-01714 (CAND February 20, 2014, Order) (Alsup, J.)