Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently decided issues raised at the pretrial conference, after considering letter briefs submitted by the parties. Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. N.A, C.A. No. 09-80-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014). Judge Stark allowed Philips to try its indirect infringement claims despite failing to “adequately” respond to Masimo’s interrogatories. Id. at ¶ 1. Because Masimo never complained of the sufficiency of Philip’s responses until a few weeks before trial, Judge Stark determined that “the best exercise of [the Court’s] discretion is to permit the indirect infringement allegations to be tried.” Id. Judge Stark also decided issues related to Masimo’s trial presentation regarding damages in light of Philips’ recent concession of infringement. Judge Stark permitted Masimo to present evidence of Philips’ alleged infringement and that the infringement allegations were pending during the parties negotiations: “This is necessary to avoid the jury incorrectly assuming that Masimo engaged in negotiations with Philips because Masimo was highly motivated to license the patents.” Id. at ¶ 2.A. Masimo would not be permitted, however to present any further information because Masimo failed to demonstrate that such information would be “necessary as part of a proper damages analysis” and the risk of confusing the jury outweighed any probative value. Id. As part of its damages presentation, Judge Stark also permitted Masimo to present evidence about Masimo’s prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit and that the the patent was found valid and infringed prior to the parties entering into a settlement agreement (the details of which were relied upon by the parties’ experts). Id. at ¶ 2.B.