In an order addressing various motions in limine filed by the parties, Judge Farnan granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant from introducing any evidence or argument related to plaintiff’s pre-suit investigation and testing “as it relates to the use of evidence of the attorney-cleient privilege to create a negative inference.” The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corp., C.A. No. 05-737-JJF, Order, at 1 (D. Del. May 30, 2010). The court denied the motion in part, however, and allowed testimony and evidence for the purpose of impeaching or “showing internal doubt on the part of Dow that Nova’s product infringed the patents-in-suit.” Id. at 2.
The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude the defendants’ damages expert from relying on licensing agreements found through the Royaltysource database. Id.
On a trial practice note, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to preclude the defendants from using excerpts of deposition testimony during opening statements. Id. at 3.