Order | Filed: September 18, 2026
| Entered: September 18, 2026
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v. RE Secured Networks, LLC
Patent | Delaware
Order on Motion to Strike
ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the opening and reply expert reports of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. R. Jacob Baker regarding invalidity (“Motion”), (D.I. 246 ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 247 ; D.I. 274 ; D.I. 285 ), and having considered Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37, hereby ORDERS as follows with regard to the remaining portions of this Motion: (1) With regard to Issue #1, Defendant’s request is DENIED. To a great degree, Defendant uses the Rhodes-663 example as a representative example for its bases to strike all of the content at issue, (D.I. 247 at 1), and the Court will thus treat it as representative here. In doing so, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the content at issue in Dr. Baker’s reply report—i.e., Dr. Baker rebutting Defendant’s expert Dr. Carley’s suggestion that a POSITA would be unaware that a reset gate and a transfer gate operate the same way, by citing to Rhodes-663 to demonstrate how such a concept was well understood in the art—is appropriate content for a reply report. That is because Rhodes-663 is a document that is being cited in order to rebut criticism in a competing expert’s prior report. See Pharmacyclics LLC v. Fresenius Kaba USA, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-192-CFC-CJB, D.I. 472 (D. Del. Sep. 4, 2020); see also Withrow v. Spears, 967 F. Supp. 2d 982, 1001-02 (D. Del. 2013); (D.I. 274 at 1-2).; and (2) The Court next addresses Issue #2, and does so in two parts: (a) As to the dispute over Dr. Baker’s anticipation opinions regarding Rhodes-647 and Rhodes-413 that were set out in Dr. Baker’s reply report, the request is DENIED. Plaintiff asserted in its answering brief that the opinions were in direct response to new opinions offered by Defendant’s infringement expert Dr. Carley in his opening expert report on infringement. More specifically, Plaintiff asserted that Dr. Baker is essentially saying that if Dr. Carley’s opinion was correct (i.e., that a particular claim limitation is unnecessary), then Dr. Baker’s prior obviousness opinion (e.g., regarding Rhodes-647 and Kimura, and Rhodes-413 and Kimura) could simply be converted into an anticipation opinion—in that there would no longer be any need to utilize Kimura to address a claim limitation that Dr. Carley now appears to no longer be pressing. (D.I. 274 at 3 (citing id., ex. A at ¶¶ 131, 133, 170)) In its reply brief, Defendant did not suggest that the way Plaintiff is framing what happened was incorrect. Instead, it simply argued that Dr. Baker’s “new theor[ies]” could not be added in a reply report. (D.I. 285 at 2) But an expert may offer a “new opinion[]” or a new argument in a reply report, so long as it is in direct response to something the other party’s expert articulated for the first time in a prior expert report. See In re FTX Trading, Ltd., Case No. 22-11068 (JTD) (Bankr. D. Del.), Civ. No. 24-804 (TLA), Civ. No. 24-806 (TLA), 2025 WL 3470890, at *5 (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2025); cf. Stored Value Sols., Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., Inc., Civil Action No. 09-495-LPS, D.I. 89 at 3-4 (D. Del. Sep. 27, 2010); Withrow, 967 F. Supp. 2d at 1001-02; Intell. Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 12-193-LPS, 2017 WL 478565, at *4-5 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2017); and (b) As to the dispute over Dr. Baker’s opinions based on the combination of Kochi and Guidash-656, Plaintiff responds by saying that the dispute should be treated in the same way as is its argument regarding the Motion’s Issue #3. (D.I.