The CAFC vacated a district court's summary judgment of non-infringement for Apple, ruling that the district court improperly struck an expert opinion from Taction Technology. The underlying case involved patent claims alleging infringement related to haptics technology in Apple products. The district court had concluded that the expert's opinion introduced a new theory and violated Local Patent Rule 3.1(c). The CAFC determined that the district court misinterpreted the rule and the expert testimony was necessary for Taction's viability in their infringement claims.
"The court's interpretation of Rule 3.1(c) as including an unwritten 'how' requirement was arbitrary and improperly reads in a requirement that has no support in the plain language of the rule."
The CAFC held that the district court abused its discretion in striking an expert infringement opinion, thus vacating the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for Apple.
Collection
[
|
...
]