Andrew E. Russell highlighted ~ It makes Cox look dishonest.
For invalidity purposes, Cisco/Cox wanted to read the prior art and the claims as broadly as possible; for infringement purposes, Cisco/Cox does not necessarily care about the prior art, but surely wants to read the claims narrowly. Those goals are not the same or similar motivation; they are different motivations.
I will grant Cox’s request under Rule 403 to exclude not only the testimony but any reference to the testimony. It has at most little probative value, which is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, and waste of time
Market Data 
Markets 
