The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
ORDER CONCERNING DUTIES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR COURT-APPOINTED EXPERT
Subject to the conditions set forth in this Order, the Court hereby appoints Dr. Perreault as its expert witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 706. As the court-appointed expert, Dr. Perreault shall serve as a neutral, independent expert on behalf of the Court on the technology at issue in this case. His duties shall be to provide expert analysis and opinions as to the technical issues in this case concerning infringement/non-infringement and validity/invalidity of the asserted claims (i.e., claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14) of U.S. Patent No. 7,417,382 ("the "382 patent"). These issues shall include (1) whether any or all of the accused products of Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., and/or ASUS Computer International literally infringe any of the asserted claims of the "382 patent and (2) whether any or all of the asserted claims are invalid in view of the prior art, by reason of either anticipation or obviousness.
Dr. Perreault will be provided with various materials to use as resources when forming his opinions. He is not limited to these materials, and may request additional information if he believes that it is necessary. He may give these materials as much weight and consideration as he believes in his professional judgment is required.
Copies of the following materials will be provided to Dr. Perreault within five days of the entry of an order appointing him, in organized binders that are labeled and tabbed:
(i) The model jury instructions for patent cases in the Northern District of California;
(iii) The file history of the "382 patent;
(iv) O2 Micro‟s Final Infringement Contentions with respect to the "382 patent;
(v) All product materials cited in the referenced Final Infringement Contentions;
(vi) Each Counterclaim-Defendant‟s Final Invalidity Contentions with respect to the "382 patent;
(vii) All prior art references cited in the referenced Final Invalidity Contentions;
(viii) Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.‟s ("MPS") Second Amended Complaint;
(ix) O2 Micro‟s Answer and Counterclaims to MPS‟s Second Amended Complaint;
(x) Each Counterclaim-Defendant‟s pleading in response to O2 Micro‟s Answer and Counterclaims to MPS‟s Second Amended Complaint;
(xi) The expert reports on infringement/non-infringement and validity/invalidity exchanged by the parties in this case (subject to agreed redactions, if necessary, as to products no longer in the case), [and non-duplicative expert reports, if any, exchanged in the ITC proceeding (Investigation No. 337-TA-666)];
(xii) All of the post-hearing briefing exchanged by the parties and ITC Staff in the ITC proceeding (Investigation No. 337-TA-666), redacted as and if necessary to ...