Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00774/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00774-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

1

Case No. 5:11-cv-00774-PSG

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REBUTTAL 

REPORT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEK GLOBAL S.R.L., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Sealant Systems International Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:11-cv-00774-PSG

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’

SUPPLEMENTAL REBUTTAL 

REPORT

(Re: Docket Nos. 373, 374)

Following remand, this court issued an order permitting each party to file supplemental 

expert reports.1 Defendants object to the scope of a supplemental report from Plaintiffs’ expert 

Homayoon Kazerooni and ask that the court strike certain portions.2 Their particular beef is that, 

in his supplemental rebuttal report, Kazerooni has gone beyond what they contend was permitted: 

addressing the Federal Circuit’s construction of the disputed claim term “cooperating with.”

3

 

There is just one problem with Defendants’ objection: their expert did the same thing. In 

particular, in his own supplemental expert report, Defendants’ expert Randall King speaks at 

length about whether prior art discloses a “three-way valve,” an entirely different claim term.4 

 

1

See Docket No. 360 at 2. 

2

See Docket No. 374.

3

See id.

4

See Docket No. 373-1 at 18:21-19:5, 20:12-21:5, 22:1-26, 23:25-27, 26:17-21.

Case 3:11-cv-00774-VC Document 382 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 5:11-cv-00774-PSG

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REBUTTAL 

REPORT

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Nowhere in its opinion did the Federal Circuit address that limitation.5

Any number of legal doctrines might apply to this situation. For the sake of brevity, the 

court will simply apply one: “pot, kettle, black.” 

Defendants’ request is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

5

See Docket No. 357; Sealant Systems International, Inc. et al. v. Tek Global, S.R.L. et al., 616 

Fed. App’x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Case 3:11-cv-00774-VC Document 382 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2