TEK Global S.R.L. et.al. v. Sealant Systems International Inc. et.al.

Filing 481

ORDER RE TRIAL EXHIBITS 55, 56, 60, AND 145. Signed by Judge Chhabria on 3/10/2017. (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEK GLOBAL, S.R.L., et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-00774-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE TRIAL EXHIBITS 55, 56,
60, AND 145

v.
SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL,
INC, et al.,
Defendants.

Exhibits 55 and 56 are not admissible to show copying because they don't evidence
copying of a commercial embodiment of the invention claimed in the '110 patent. And even if
the evidence were relevant because the product contained a portion of the invention, it would be
excluded under Rule 403.
Sealant's substantive evidentiary objections to Exhibits 60 and 145 are overruled. With a
limiting instruction (if Sealant desires one), and with the understanding that TEK will be
prevented from placing undue emphasis on these exhibits at trial and will be required to explain
their limited relevance during opening and closing, they are probative enough of copying to
overcome Sealant's Rule 403 objection. And although TEK has not shown that these exhibits are
business records, they are clearly statements of a party opponent (to the extent they are even
being offered to prove the truth of the statements therein). Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
However, TEK has not yet given a proper explanation of how it can get Exhibits 60 and
145 exhibits into evidence, and the Court's preliminary research has not led to an easy answer.
The two cases TEK cites, Sea-Land Service and Brown, do not seem to stand for the proposition
that these exhibits may be admitted at trial without any further evidence of authentication and/or

without a sponsoring witness. TEK is therefore ordered to file a brief, not to exceed three pages,
explaining how it proposes to get these exhibits into evidence. The brief must be filed by 3 pm
on Saturday, March 11, 2017. Any response by Sealant, also limited to three pages, must be
filed by 7 pm on the same day. Assuming the parties are able to give the Court clear guidance on
the question, it will make a ruling Sunday so as to assist the parties in their preparation for
opening statements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2017
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2