Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OKI AMERICA, INC. et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

and related counterclaims

___________________________________/

No. C 04-03171 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court for decision are OKI’s motion to strike the

supplemental expert report of Alan Ratliff (Docket no. 309); OKI’s motion to strike the

newest supplemental report of Alan Ratliffe (Docket no. 386); and OKI’s motion to strike the

supplemental infringement contentions of Dr. Bruce Smith (Docket no. 366). After carefully

considering the parties’ submissions, the Court rules as follows:

1. OKI’s motion to strike the supplemental expert report of Alan Ratliff is

DENIED. Oki’s expert testified that he was able to take Ratliff’s supplement into account in

the preparation of his rebuttal report.

2. Oki’s motion to strike the newest supplemental report of Alan Ratliffe is

DENIED; however, Oki may take Ratliffe’s deposition solely on the opinions disclosed in

the August 31, 2006 report and nothing more. AMD must make Ratliffe available on or 

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 460 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\3171\orderresuppexperts.wpd 2

before October 6, 2006, unless the parties agree otherwise. Oki need not submit a further

rebuttal report addressing Ratliffe’s August 31, 2006 report; instead, Oki’s expert may rebut

the new opinions at trial.

3. OKI’s motion to strike the supplemental infringement contentions of Dr. Bruce

Smith is DENIED; however, Oki may take the deposition of Dr. Smith and question him

about the new infringement contentions raised in the August 11, 2006 and August 30, 2006

reports, and nothing more. AMD must make Dr. Smith available on or before October 6,

2006, unless the parties agree otherwise. Oki need not submit a further rebuttal report

addressing Dr. Smith’s new experiments and infringement contentions; instead, Oki’s expert

may rebut the new opinions at trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 460 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2