OURT FOR THE
.,(f/k/a NeXT C
of June 22, 2012
, sitting by designation. In my opinionand order of May 22, following the
hearing held on the16th, I ruled that proposed testimony by three of the parties’damages experts (one for Apple and two for Motorola) was in-admissible.
Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc
., No. 1:11-cv-8540, 2012WL 1959560 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2012); see Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703.This ruling precipitated motions by both parties for summary judgment with respect to their opponents’ damages claims, fol-lowed by motions for summary judgment directed at each oth-er’s injunction claims as well. These submissions prompted meto ask the parties to brief the question whether, if all damagesand injunctive claims dropped from the case, the case could be