In a recent post-trial opinion, Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet touched on a host of issues, including obviousness, indefiniteness, inequitable conduct, double patenting, and infringement. Beyond the substantive analysis of the patents-in-suit, the Court also answered an equally important procedural point for the litigator: which evidence may be included in post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
According to the Court, only the evidence presented at trial:
“The court notes for the benefit of future parties . . . that the court’s pre-trial order that all objections to exhibits are overruled without prejudice – thus allowing each party to object in real-time – was not intended to have the effect that the plaintiffs assert. The parties’ post-trial briefs should be based only on evidence actually presented at trial, and not any evidence that could have been presented at trial.”
See Order, at n.1.