Air Turbine Technology, Inc. v. Atlas Copco Ab, Atlas Copco Tools Ab, Atlas Copco North America, Inc., and Atlas Copco Tools, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the use of such contemporaneous transmission in lieu of live testimony is “expressly reserved to the sound discretion of the trial court”
• affirming trial court’s denial of motion to use video conference testimony, noting that whether to allow video teleconference testimony was “a matter expressly reserved to the sound discretion of the trial court”
• “[W]e do not think the district court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Catz’s testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) insofar as his testimony exceeded the material disclosed in his expert report.”
• affirming trial court' s denial of motion to use video conference testimony, noting that whether to allow video teleconference testimony was \ a matter expressly reserved to the sound discretion of the trial court\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).