Enplas Display Device Corporation et al v. Seoul Semiconductor Company, Ltd.

Filing 388

ORDER REGARDING DROPPED CLAIMS AND THEORIES. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 3/4/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

ENPLAS DISPLAY DEVICE
CORPORATION, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiffs,
12
v.

Case No.13-cv-05038 NC
ORDER REGARDING DROPPED
CLAIMS AND THEORIES

13
14
15

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR
COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant.

16
17

The parties submitted additional briefing to the Court with dueling stipulations as to

18

how the Court and the parties should handle dropped claims and theories at trial. Dkt. No.

19

386. The Court does not find that a hearing is necessary.

20

The Court finds the following procedure is appropriate:

21

1. The parties agree that SSC does not assert that EDD directly infringes the

22

patents-in-suit. The Court has clarified the parties’ statement of the case in the

23

preliminary jury instructions to reflect that EDD is accused of actively inducing

24

infringement. The Court concludes that it is not relevant for SSC to present

25

evidence that EDD directly infringes the patents, and such references will be

26

excluded. The Court requests that the parties refer to EDD’s liability as for

27

“induced infringement” rather than “infringement,” as the term infringement

28

could be easily construed as direct infringement.
Case No.13-cv-05038 NC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

2. The jury will be instructed that EDD’s defense for invalidity of the ’209 patent
over the prior art is limited to obviousness.
3. Because the anticipation argument on the ’209 patent is not relevant, the Court
excludes reference to or evidence of the anticipation argument.
4. The parties may not refer to any court orders or procedural history regarding
claims and products not in the case, or the reasons why they may not be at issue.
5. The jury will be given the following jury instruction in the preliminary
instructions, the closing instructions, and at any other time that the Court

9

believes is necessary: “Although the parties may refer to other claims or lenses,

10

you will only be asked to decide on infringement and/or invalidity of the claims

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

and lenses listed in the jury instructions.”

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: March 4, 2016

16

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC

2