Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ORDER
Before the Court are the parties Motions in Limine. [Dkt. Nos. 586, 601, 605] The Court
conducted a pretrial hearing on May 28, 2010 during which the Court heard arguments about
(e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence . . . at a trial,
unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). This motion
is GRANTED.
Mallinckrodt argues that E-Z-EM revealed to third-party witnesses documents that were
marked Confidential but then would not allow Mallinckrodt to cross-examine those witnesses
with other similarly marked documents. For example, during the deposition of Stephen
Bellofatto who is a product developer by an outside company that implements the use-related
features of E-Z-EMs Empower injectors, Mr. Ruttenberg attempted to question Mr. Bellofatto
about a design document. Mr. Bennett allegedly refused to allow Mr. Bellofatto look at the
document.
To the extent that either party hindered the cross-examination of a witness on a topic, the
Court will not allow that party to present the witness testimony on that topic at trial. The Court
Mallinckrodt argues that the evidence of the amounts of prior settlements made under the
threat of litigation raises an unreasonable risk of unfair prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403. The
general rule is that royalties paid to avoid litigation are not a reliable indicator of the value of a
patent. See Automation Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 587 F.Supp.2d 794, 801 (E.D. Tex. 2007).
However, where a settlement agreement involves the same patent or technology, they may be
highly relevant, notwithstanding their origins. See ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d
860 (Fed.Cir.2010); Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2010 WL 903259 (E.D. Tex.
2010).
This motion is GRANTED as to all licenses except those that are sufficiently similar.
The fact that there are reexamination proceedings and a decision has been made by the
PTO is not probative of any element regarding any claim of invalidity. Procter & Gamble Co. v.
Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 549 F.3d 842, 848 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (a requestor's burden to show that
a reexamination order should issue from the PTO is unrelated to a defendant's burden to prove
efforts. E-Z-EM is not permitted to introduce evidence that it declined to produce as requested.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). This motion is GRANTED as to actual design-around efforts. This
This motion is DENIED. The parties are permitted to present evidence of spoliation.
evidence for the purpose of overcoming the presumption of validity and to rebut the claim of
willfulness.
12. Preclude defendants experts from testifying beyond the scope of their
expert reports
is seeking lost profits. The parties may present evidence comparing the accused products to the
embodying product for the limited purpose of demonstrating (or rebutting) their similarity. The
parties may not engage in a claim element-by-claim element comparison of the products.
1644062, at * 1518 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (allowing product-to-product comparison for the limited
purpose of demonstrating lost profits). E-Z-EM is also permitted to show that Plaintiffs
products do not practice the invention for the purpose of showing the value of the patent.
14. Preclude any experts beyond the maximum number permitted in the
Courts discovery order
This motion is GRANTED. The parties are permitted to rely upon the opinions of the first
This motion is GRANTED in part. See Fed. R. Evid. 703 (Facts or data that are otherwise
inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless
the court determines that their probative value is assisting the jury to evaluate the experts
opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.); 803 (not excluded from the hearsay
5. Preclude testimony about counsel for E-Z-EM and counsel for third-
party witnesses
This motion is GRANTED in PART. To the extent that parties are seeking to introduce
This motion is GRANTED per rule 402. The Court refers this motion to Judge
Everingham for case-by-case ruling.
This motion is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The Court refers this motion to
This motion should be DENIED. It is unclear how E-Z-EM would establish that suspect
10. Preclude testimony about claim constructions that are different from
or contrary to the Courts rulings
11. Preclude testimony about prior legal positions and arguments taken
by the parties
As to briefs, pleadings, infringement or invalidity questions and the like, this motion is
motion is DENIED.
This motion is GRANTED per rule 402 and 403. To allow such evidence would
This motion is DENIED per the Courts order of May 25, 2010. Even if E-Z-EM elects
not to pursue the advice-of-counsel defense to the willful infringement claims, it has already
waived privilege.
This motion is GRANTED with a limited exception. The parties are entitled to voir dire on
This is GRANTED as it relates to improper evidence of offers of settlement under rule 408.
18. Preclude evidence that the named inventors advised Plaintiffs patent
prosecution counsel about the existence and relevance of prior art to
the 710 patent application
This motion is GREANTED. To the extent a witness asserted a claim of privilege during a
deposition, the witness is not entitled to testify about the withheld topic on the stand. To allow
the witness to testify on those subjects would be allowing a party to use privilege as a sword and
shield. See Cunningham v. Chapel Hill, ISD, 438 F.Supp.2d 718, 724 (E.D. Tex. 2006)
([Defendant] should not be allowed to prevent Mosely or other trustees from being deposed
with regard to the Boards motivations for denying Cunningham's Level III grievance and then
19. Preclude testimony that Mr. Humphrey asked the inventors of their
awareness of prior art.
This motion is GRANTED as to Mr. Humphrey. This motion is DENIED as to all others.
This motion is GRANTED as to Mr. Humphrey and DENIED as to all others, except to the
This motion is DENIED. To the extent that a document introduced does not reflect the
accused product, E-Z-EM can demonstrate as much during cross-examination. This testimony
shows product development and would be relevant to infringement and potentially damages.
This motion is DENIED provided that the deposition use conforms with the requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 32. Permissible uses include: impeachment, deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness,
This motion is DENIED. The Court refers this to Judge Everingham for a case-by-case
ruling.
__________________________________________
T. JOHN WARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE