Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

28

- 1 - 02cv2060

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Civil No. 02cv2060-B (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING LUCENT’S

MOTION TO PRECLUDE

MICROSOFT’S DESIGNATION OF

NEW EXPERT WITNESSES

v.

GATEWAY, INC.; GATEWAY COUNTRY

STORES LLC; MICROSOFT

CORPORATION; and DELL, INC.,

Defendants.

And related counterclaims.

On September 28, 2006, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference on Plaintiff Lucent

Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to Preclude Microsoft from Designating New Expert Witnesses with

regard to claims and defenses relating to U.S. Patent No. RE 39,080 (“the ‘080 Patent”). Alan

Kellman, Esq., Scott Samay, Esq., and Robert Appleby, Esq., appeared for Lucent. Justin Barnes,

Esq., and John Giust, Esq., appeared for Microsoft. Having considered the submissions of the

parties and the arguments of counsel, the motion is DENIED.

The ‘080 Patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,627,938 (“the ‘938 Patent”). The Court

substituted the ‘080 Patent into this case in place of the ‘938 Patent on August 15, 2006, after the

close of discovery and the exchange of expert reports. [Doc. No. 525.] At the time of the

substitution, the Court reopened discovery for the “limited purpose of exploring any new claims and

defenses raised by Lucent’s substitution of the ‘080 Patent.”

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 541 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 2
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

28

- 2 - 02cv2060

Microsoft designated two new experts with opinions on invalidity, enforceabilty and damages

regarding the ‘080 Patent. In accordance with the Court’s order limiting the scope of discovery, the

reports of these experts may incorporate previously provided opinions regarding the ‘938 Patent that

are now applicable to the ‘080 Patent and any new opinions raised by the substitution of the ‘080

reissue patent for the ‘938 patent in this litigation. Lucent may serve rebuttal reports incorporating

any previously provided rebuttal opinions corresponding to those previous opinions incorporated by

Microsoft and respond to any new opinions raised by the substitution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2006

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 541 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2