Asetek Holdings, Inc et al v. Cooler Master Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 124

PRETRIAL ORDER RE JURY ISSUES. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 16, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ASETEK A/S,

Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST
Plaintiff,

8
v.

PRETRIAL ORDER RE JURY ISSUES

9
10

CMI USA, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

In further preparation for the scheduled jury trial, the Court ORDERS the creation of a

13

joint juror notebook, the requirements of which are identified below. In addition, the parties are

14

advised that the Court is considering modifications to the normal presentation of evidence given

15

the technical nature of the issues to be presented to the jury, as stated below.

16

First, the Court is considering showing the Federal Judicial Center’s video entitled “The

17

Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors” to the jury. Counsel are to advise whether they have any

18

objection. The video may be viewed on the FJC’s YouTube channel at

19

http://youtu.be/ax7QHQTbKQE.

20

Second, the parties shall meet and confer in developing a joint juror notebook. The Court

21

will review the proposed juror notebook with the parties at the pre-trial conference scheduled for

22

November 14, 2014, and resolve any disagreements. Once approved, the parties shall provide

23

sufficient notebooks for each juror, plus two. The Court will add its own cover page for the front

24

of the notebook. The notebook should include the following components/tabs:

25
26

1. An empty sheet protector in which the Court can insert a page with a warning
regarding use of social media and duties of jurors;

27

2. Index;

28

3. Loose leaf paper for note taking;

1

4. Glossary of technical terms;

2

5. Photographs of each witness. Each party will be responsible for taking a photograph of

3

each witness testifying in its case in chief outside the Courtroom immediately before

4

the witness testifies. The witness’ appearance must be the same in the photograph as

5

on the witness stand (i.e., the same clothing, hairstyle, and eyewear). At the time of

6

trial, the parties shall provide the Courtroom Deputy with eleven (11) copies of each

7

photograph, printed on three-hole-punched, 8 1/2” x 11” paper. The photograph size

8

itself should be at least 4” by 6”. The Courtroom Deputy will distribute the

9

photographs for placement in the juror binders;

10

6. Color-coded handouts identifying the specific language of the claims that are at issue in

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the patents and their import to the action. See, e.g., Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Case

12

No. 10-cv-3561-WHA, ECF No. 633. The handouts should also include any

13

constructions by the Court or to which the parties have stipulated. Alternatively, a

14

chart may be a better mechanism for communicating that particular information;

15

7. A common timeline of events, if appropriate and useful;

16

8. Copies of the patents (on double-sided paper). The copies of the patents should

17
18

highlight or box the claims at issue;
9. A copy of the Patent Example referenced in the FJC video to be played to the jurors, a

19

copy of which can be found at

20

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/PatentSystemSample2.pdf/$file/PatentSyste

21

mSample2.pdf; and

22
23

10. Final jury instructions (to be provided later).
The parties should feel free to suggest additional content for the juror notebooks.

24

Third, the Court is considering whether: (i) to allow “mini-arguments” during trial; (ii) to

25

require the parties to present each side’s experts on a particular topic back-to-back; (iii) to allow

26

jurors to discuss the evidence during the case as it is being presented; and (iv) to allow jurors to

27

ask questions during the trial. The parties should meet and confer on these issues; a joint

28

recommendation will carry more weight with the Court than will competing proposals.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

Lastly, the Court intends to seat nine jurors, not eleven as stated at the October 15, 2014
case management conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3