Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WORDTECH SYSTEMS, INC., No. 2:04-cv-01971-MCE-EFB

A California Corporation

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

INTEGRATED NETWORK SOLUTIONS,

CORP., dba INTEGRATED SYSTEMS,

aka INTERNET NETWORK STORAGE

COMPANY, aka INSC; NASSER

KHATEMI; HAMID ASSADIAN; BRIAN

J. DEAN; MICHAEL F. ELLSWORTH;

EHTERAM GHODSIAN; INTEGRATED

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., a

Nevada Corporation; SHOHREH

JAVADI; SAN JUAN UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES 1-

50, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Wordtech Systems, Inc.

(“Wordtech”) alleges that Defendants Network Solutions, Inc.,

Nasser Khatemi and Hamid Assadian (“Defendants”) infringed

several of its patents. 

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 158 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2

By Memorandum and Order dated June 21, 2007, the Court granted

partial summary judgment in favor of Wordtech on grounds that any

alleged invalidity of the patents in question had not properly

been raised by Defendants as an affirmative defense in this

litigation. Consequently the Court determined the patents to be

valid.

In addition to moving for a summary adjudication as to the

validity of the patents, Wordtech also filed a Motion to Strike

Defendants’ Expert Witness Disclosure and to Exclude Expert

Witness Testimony. The sole expert disclosed by Defendants on

January 23, 2007 was Lawrence Kamm, a licensed professional

engineer, whose report expressed an opinion that the patents in

question were invalid because of prior art. Mr. Kamm expressed

no opinion as to whether any infringement on the part of

Defendants had occurred since he believed the issue of

infringement to be moot if the patents in fact were invalid.

In light of the Court’s June 21, 2007 Order finding the

patents to be valid as a matter of law, any expert opinion

proffered by Defendants as to the invalidity of the patents is

now moot. Moreover, with respect to infringement, Mr. Kamm’s

report offered no opinion as to that issue. In addition,

Defendants did not oppose Wordtech’s Motion to Strike the expert

disclosure as to infringement. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 158 Filed 07/20/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

3

Wordtech’s Motion to Strike Expert Witness Disclosure and to

Exclude Expert Witness Testimony is accordingly GRANTED.1

Lawrence Kamm shall be precluded from providing expert witness

testimony or opinion at trial on the issues of invalidity of the

patents at issue and infringement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 158 Filed 07/20/07 Page 3 of 3