3,676 Page Invalidity Expert Report Not Improperly Lengthy

The court denied plaintiff's motion to strike the 3,676 page report of defendant's invalidity expert as too long. "Plaintiff contends the report is too long to read and digest, and it obscures relevant issues by forcing [plaintiff] to expend an unreasonable amount of resources just to process it. . . . [Defendant] produced a comprehensive, detailed expert report. . . . Plaintiff did not move to strike the report until seven weeks later, on the night rebuttal reports were due. In its motion, Plaintiff does not state it cannot understand [the expert's] report. Nor does it claim the report is convoluted or lacking in substance, or that it is premised on technical or legal inaccuracies. . . . [A]lthough [the] report is lengthy, the size of the report alone does not make it improper warranting the Court to strike it. There are many complex issues involved, and the facts of this case require a detailed invalidity analysis. [Defendant] is required to present evidence of the invalidity of all 32 claims asserted against its customers as that issue will be included in the trials against the Supplier Defendants. . . . [Defendant] states Plaintiff has refused to reduce the scope of the overall dispute, and if Plaintiff would agree to this simplification, the report could be drastically reduced in size."

Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, 6-12-cv-00499 (TXED May 27, 2015, Order) (Craven, M.J.)