• ALJ Bullock Rules On Motion To Preclude Direct Testimony Of Expert Witness In Certain Static Random Access Memories (337-TA-792)
  • May 7, 2012 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On May 1, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 44 (dated March 8, 2012) in Certain Static Random Access Memories and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-792).

    In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted-in-part a motion filed by Respondents seeking to preclude Complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s (“Cypress”) expert witness from offering new and revised testimony.  In support of their motion, Respondents argued that (1) the errata to the witness statement offered by Cypress was, in fact, a revised witness statement that was filed nearly three weeks after the January 26, 2012 deadline set forth in the procedural schedule, (2) the errata should be excluded because it contained substantive additions to the expert’s testimony, and (3) Cypress’s late filing of the errata was prejudicial because it prevented the Respondents from including testimony in their rebuttal witness statements addressing the new testimony.  Cypress opposed the motion and argued, inter alia, that the errata merely provided missing citations to demonstratives that were already disclosed in the expert’s original witness statement and thus there was no prejudice to the Respondents.

    ALJ Bullock declined to preclude the errata in its entirety, however, he noted that it did “add numerous citations to demonstrative exhibits where, as Respondents note, there previously were none.”  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock determined to strike reference to certain demonstrative exhibits in the revised witness statement of Cypress’s expert witness.