Legal Opinion
Sparton Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided April 18, 2007No. 92-580CPublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DAMICH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court in this patent infringement case is Defendant’s Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Professor Ralph C. Nash. In the motion, Defendant argues that the expert report provided by Plaintiff on behalf of Professor Nash fails to comply with the Rule 26 of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“Fed.R.Evid.”), and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
*2I. Background
Sparton Corporation…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United States v. Paul A. BilzerianCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Phillips Oil Company v. Okc CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Metric Constructors, Inc. v. National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cedillo v. Secretary of Health & Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Gruber ex rel. Gruber v. Secretary of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Katzin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Gulf Group General Enterprises Co. W.L.L. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Zoltek Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.