Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Potter Voice Technologies LLC v. Google, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Colorado

March 21, 2014

POTTER VOICE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE, INC., et al, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF DAVID KLAUSNER

Robert E. Blackburn Judge

This matter is before me on Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s Motion To Strike Declaration of David Klausner [#309][1] filed March 1, 2013. The plaintiff filed a response [#315], and Microsoft filed a reply [#316]. I deny the motion.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Microsoft seeks to exclude the declaration of David Klausner, an expert on whom the plaintiff relies for the purpose of claim construction in this patent infringement case.

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony, provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed.R.Evid. 702. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, Rule 702 requires that an expert’s testimony be both reliable and relevant. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-92 (1993); Truck Insurance Exchange v. MagneTek, Inc., 360 F.3d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has described the court’s role in weighing expert opinions against these standards as that of a “gatekeeper.” See Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999). Generally, “rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” United States v. Nacchio, 519 F.3d 1140, 1154 (10th Cir. 2008), vacated in part on rehearing en banc, 555 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2009); Fed.R.Evid. 702, 2000 Advisory Comm.’s Notes.

II. BACKGROUND

In 1998, United States patent number 5, 729, 659 (the ‘659 patent) was issued to Jerry L. Potter. Plaintiff, Potter voice Technologies LLC, now owns the ‘659 patent. The ‘659 patent describes a method and apparatus for controlling a digital computer using oral input. The patent infringement claims alleged in Potter’s complaint [#366] are based on four distinct software products: (1) BlackBerry Voice Commands; (2) Google Voice Search; (3) Google Voice Actions; and (4) Windows Speech Commands. Potter alleges that the defendants infringe the ‘659 patent when these software products are used on mobile phones.

The ‘659 patent concerns, in part, a field of computer science called associative searching or associative computing. For example, claim 22 of the ‘659 patent describes a “search means . . . for associatively searching said tabular data structure, comprising means for identifying labels within said tabular data structure which relate to at least a first part of such input information.” 659 patent [#269-7], Claim 22. There is no dispute that the patent claims addressed by Mr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.