Sloan Valve Co.. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., No. 10 C 204, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2013) (St. Eve, J.).
Judge St. Eve granted in part defendant’s (collectively “Zurn”) motion to strike plaintiff Sloan Valve’s (“Sloan”) reply expert report in this patent dispute. The Federal Rules and the Local Patent Rules do not typically allow reply reports without prior leave of Court for cause, LPR 5.3. But the parties agreed to reply reports and the Court entered a reply report deadline, at the parties’ request. So, a reply report was permissible, but only to the extent that it was responsive to the rebuttal report. On that issue, the Court held as follows:
- Recalculations using unweighted rations, which were mentioned but not used in the opening report, were permissible because they responded to a criticism in the rebuttal report.
- The inclusion in calculations of “new” incremental costs was allowable as responsive to the rebuttal report.
- The addition of an entirely new schedule and damages computation was not allowable.
- Zurn’s expert was not allowed to file a supplemental expert report because the Court struck the improperly prejudicial portions of the reply report.