Kenu, Inc. v. Belkin International, Inc.

Filing 180

ORDER re defendant Belkin's 126 Motion in Limine No. 5 to Preclude Plaintiff from Referencing Alleged Infringement of Unasserted Patents. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/7/2018. (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KENU, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 126

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER RE DEFENDANT BELKIN’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-01429-JD

12

Defendant Belkin International, Inc. has filed a motion in limine asking the Court to

13

preclude plaintiff Kenu, Inc. from arguing to the jury that Belkin’s Vent Mount 2 product infringes

14

Kenu’s U.S. Patent No. 9,718,412 (the ’412 patent), which issued from a continuation of the

15

patents-in-suit. Dkt. No. 126. Neither the Vent Mount 2 product nor the ’412 patent are squarely

16

at issue in this case. This case, and the jury trial, center on whether or not Belkin’s Vent Mount 1

17

product infringes Kenu’s U.S. Design Patent No. D690,707. The motion is DENIED.
Because Kenu intends to pursue lost profits as one measure of damages in this case, Belkin

18
19

is entitled to introduce the Vent Mount 2 as a possible “acceptable non-infringing alternative” for

20

the patented product. Mentor Graphics Corporation v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed.

21

Cir. 2017) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir.

22

1978)). Kenu in turn is entitled to argue that the Vent Mount 2 is not a “non-infringing” product.

23

Id.; see also State Industries, Inc. v. Mor-Flo Industries, Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1575-76 (Fed. Cir.

24

1989).

25

While the Court declines to preclude either the Vent Mount 2 or the ’412 Patent for these

26

reasons, these issues clearly raise a real danger of jury confusion and misuse of the juries’ time, as

27

both parties have acknowledged. See Dkt. No. 126 (Belkin’s motion) at ECF p. 2 (citing United

28

States v. Jones, 123 F. App’x 773, 775 (9th Cir. 2005), for proposition that exclusion is warranted

1

where there is a “danger of confusing the issues and wasting time with mini-trials regarding the

2

events underlying” different claims than those alleged at trial); id. at ECF p.7 (Kenu’s opposition

3

acknowledging possibility of “genuinely valid concerns of prejudice or confusion flowing from

4

Kenu’s allegations against Belkin’s Vent Mount 2 on the basis of the ’412 Patent . . .”).

5

The Court consequently advises the parties that any reference to the Vent Mount 2 and the

6

’412 patent must be tightly and narrowly focused on the lost profits issue. The Court expects this

7

may be an ongoing conversation with the parties during trial -- and the Court may place additional

8

limitations on the way these issues are presented to the jury -- as the evidence develops.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2018

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2