United States District Court

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT OF MICHEL DUBOIS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 9/24/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and VIA

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (USA),

Defendants.

No. C-05-01668 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

EXPERT REPORT OF MICHEL DUBOIS RE:

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO VIA'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY

[Re Docket No. 177]

COMPUTER CACHE COHERENCY

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. C-05-01766 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

EXPERT REPORT OF MICHEL DUBOIS RE:

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO INTEL'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY

[Re Docket No. 122]

In both above-captioned cases, defendants Via and Intel separately moved to strike the expert

report of Dr. Michel Dubois submitted in support of plaintiff Computer Cache Coherency

Corporation's ("CCCC") opposition to each defendant's motion for summary judgment of nonCase 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 202 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT OF MICHEL DUBOIS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG 2

infringement and invalidity. Both defendants argued that the court should strike Dr. Dubois's expert

report because it was unsworn. CCCC opposed each defendant's motion to strike Dubois's report. 

In its oppositions, CCCC pointed out that it had filed a declaration by Dr. Dubois attesting under

oath that the facts and opinions contained in his expert reports are accurate, true, and correct,

including the disputed declaration. Neither defendant filed a reply to CCCC's opposition. 

Accordingly, because the court is satisfied that Dr. Dubois has made the requisite attestation under

oath, the court denies each defendant's motion to strike the disputed expert reports.

DATED: 9/21/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 202 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT OF MICHEL DUBOIS—No. C-05-01668 RMW; 05-01766 RMW

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com

Lawrence M. Hadley hadleyl@hbdlawyers.com

Omer Salik saliko@hbdlawyers.com

Counsel for Defendants:

James P. Bennett jbennett@mofo.com

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com

Joseph V Colaianni , Jr Colaianni@fr.com

Paul Forrest Coyne pcoyne@mofo.com

John Michael Farrell jfarrell@fr.com

Karl J. Kramer kkramer@mofo.com,sdevol@mofo.com

Jennifer A. Ochs jochs@wsgr.com,lwang@wsgr.com

Timothy Wayne Riffe Riffe@fr.com,conway@fr.com,gwilliams@fr.com

Thomas L. Treffert TTreffert@mofo.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 9/24/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01668-RMW Document 202 Filed 09/26/07 Page 3 of 3