Expert ineffective in Paradox case

The CAFC affirmed ED Texas in Paradox v. ADT.

**Ineffective expert report-->

Paradox argues that it is “axiomatic” that any signal
must have a source and that, accordingly, a DC bias
source must be coupled to the input of the transmit opto-
coupler. Although the initial premise of this statement is
correct, the conclusion hardly follows from it. Indeed, Dr.
Williams’ statements were entirely conclusory; he pointed
to no structure in the DSC schematic shown above, or in
any of the other schematics of DSC accused circuitry that
were admitted into evidence, that identified a “DC bias
source coupled to the transmit opto coupler input” as construed by the court.

**Non-expert testimony-->

As noted, Paradox contends that it produced non-
expert evidence that the accused devices infringed the
’406 patent. Specifically, Paradox points to the testimony
of a Mr. Pildner, a lead designer of DSC’s accused devices.
Mr. Pildner testified that the president of DSC observed
Paradox’s circuitry panel at a trade show. Mr. Pildner
also testified that he believed that copying was common-
place within the industry and that schematics of Para-
dox’s circuitry panels were found in DSC’s possession.
Paradox urges that Mr. Pildner’s testimony is evidence
that DSC’s accused devices infringe the ’406 patent.
However, nothing in Mr. Pildner’s testimony identifies a
structure in any of the accused devises constituting a “DC
bias source coupled to the transmit opto coupler input,” as
required by the limitations of claims 1 and 2 of the ’406
patent.