Below is a listing, by circuit, where Illuminor has either provided live testimony in court or had a motion to exclude testimony filed. To date, Illuminor reports have never been excluded in any court.
United States Court of appeals for the federal circuit
“The TTAB reasonably relied on Frito-Lay’s expert report, which concluded ‘[t]he word THINS when used for snack foods such as crackers, cookies, wafers, biscuits, crispbreads, crispbread slices, or crisps does not indicate the origin or source of the snack food item.’ There is no requirement that an expert report provide an opinion as to the marks as a whole for the TTAB to rely upon it, and we decline to impose such a requirement.”
“Frito-Lay’s expert report is relevant to the inquiry because Real Foods’ own advertising material compares its goods to snack foods, namely crackers.”
“Therefore, it was not improper for the TTAB to rely on the third party evidence contained in Frito-Lay’s expert report.”
Real Foods Pty Ltd. v Frito-Lay North America, Inc. (Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Nos 91212680 and 91231587
2nd Circuit
Motion to Exclude was filed and denied. The denial was affirmed on appeal.
“The Frank Report is relevant because it will provide the trier of fact with information about third-party use, which is a factor to be considered for genericness.”
“The Frank Report does not fall under the ambit of ‘junk science’ because it is a simple, straightforward method of searching the Internet and databases to determine third-party use. The report is relevant because third-party use can show genericness. Dr. Frank’s report is reliable because it is not ‘junk science.’ It provides information on third-party use and includes Dr. Frank’s opinion that such use contributes to the mark’s genericness. Dr. Frank’s methodology is reliable because he simply searched the term ‘peel and seal’ and generated a report on its use in public discourse. Dr. Frank gathered facts and data pertinent to the amount, frequency and type of third-party use of those terms…”
“An Internet and database search compiled to show third-party use is easily understandable to a jury because it does not involve technical scientific procedures or knowledge. On the contrary, most people understand the basic tenets of Internet and database searching His report is applicable to the facts of the case because it relates to Ampad’s cross-claims based on genericness and mere descriptiveness by showing third-party usage of the mark. Additionally, Dr. Frank is qualified.”
National Envelope Corporation, et al, v American Pad & Paper Company of Delaware, et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York., 06 CIV 12988 (December 30, 2009)
5th Circuit:
Motion to Exclude was not filed. Testimony offered for jury trial.
Isymphony Holdings Enterprises LLC v Steverson & Co., Inc. D/B/A ISymphony. 4:07cv870, United States District Court Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
Motion to Exclude was filed and denied.
Exxon Mobil Corporation v FX Networks, LLC. (13-cv-2906) United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
Motion to Exclude was filed and denied.
Waiter.com, Inc. v Waitr Holdings Inc. and Waitr Inc. (16-cv-01041) United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division