Judge Leonard Stark recently considered several motions in limine in advance of an upcoming jury trial on patent infringement and bench trial on inequitable conduct. See Enova Tech. Corp. v. Initio Corp., C.A. No. 10-04-LPS, Order at 1-3 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2013). Judge Stark first considered plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence or argument regarding “foreign patent proceedings, disputes, prosecution, or enforcement involving [plaintiff’s] foreign patent rights.” He granted the motion with respect to the upcoming jury trial, finding that the evidence was irrelevant and prohibited by Rule 403, but denied the motion with respect to the bench trial on inequitable conduct. Id. at 1.
Judge Stark also denied the following motions:
– Plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendants’ expert testimony regarding “the value of [plaintiff’s] patented technology and the value and availability of non-infringing alternatives,” which he found to be an untimely Daubert motion to exclude relevant evidence. Id. at 1-2.
– Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of licenses that were allegedly incomparable to a hypothetical license of the patents-in-suit. Id. at 2.
– Defendant’s motion to exclude any mention of a settlement between plaintiff and another defendant under Rules 408 and 403. Id.
Judge Stark granted the following motions:
– Plaintiff’s motion to “exclude testimony and argument inconsistent with the Court’s claim construction,” which all parties agreed should not be permitted. Id.
– Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit, where such evidence was inadmissible hearsay and properly excludable under Rule 403. Id.
– Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of lost sales or price erosion, where plaintiff was not seeking damages under either theory, and so long as defendant did not “open the door to such evidence.” Id. at 2-3.
Enova Tech. Corp. v. Initio Corp., C.A. No. 10-04-LPS, Order (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2013). by
Delaware IP Law Blog 