Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc.

Filing 519

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3A RE: RETRIAL. Granting 512 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Parties are Directed to Submit Revised Proposed Statements of the Case by 2/26/2024. Parties to Meet and Confer on Whether to Stipulate or Excuse any Jurors and Advise the Court by 3/15/2024, at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/5/2024. (eac, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2024)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 IMPINJ, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 19-cv-3161-YGR PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3A RE: RETRIAL NXP USA, INC., Defendant. Having conducted a trial readiness conference on February 2, 2024, and for good cause 10 shown, the Court enters the following orders: 11 1. Stipulations: The parties’ joint stipulations regarding trial conduct (Dkt No. 358-2) remain in 12 13 14 15 effect and will apply to the March 18, 2024 trial. 2. Exhibit List: The parties were instructed to provide the Court with an editable copy of the joint exhibit list (Dkt. No. 504-1), in portrait orientation, by February 5, 2024. 3. Deposition Designations: The Court expects the parties to resolve the bulk of their disputes 16 regarding deposition designations before or during the course of the trial. The current 17 submissions failed to comply with the Court’s Standing Order RE: Pretrial Instructions in Civil 18 Cases. To the extent there are any issues, they will need to be resolved at trial. 19 4. Final Jury Instructions: The Court will give the parties’ proposed final jury instructions, and 20 will not include NXP’s proposed modification to Instruction B.4.3b of the U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal. 21 Model Patent Jury Instructions. If NXP feels that testimony at trial warrants a clarifying 22 instruction regarding motivation to combine, NXP may request such an instruction at that time. 23 24 25 5. Preliminary Jury Instructions: The Court took argument on the few issues of disagreement. These will be considered and are taken under submission. 6. Preliminary Statement of the Case: Having considered the arguments regarding burden of 26 proof, the Court finds it is best suited to present this case as a declaratory judgment action for 27 invalidity (see Section 13, infra.) The parties are directed to submit revised proposed 28 statements of the case by February 26, 2024. 1 7. Jurors: The parties are advised that prospective jurors will be sent an electronic questionnaire, 2 and the Court will share results with the parties hopefully by Wednesday, March 13, 2024. 3 The Court has included the additional questions discussed at the conference. The parties shall 4 meet and confer on whether to stipulate to excuse any jurors and shall advise the Court of the 5 same by noon on Friday, March 15, 2024. The Court will make its own independent 6 determinations to excuse on hardship grounds. 7 8. Jury Selection: The Court expects jury selection to conclude on Monday March 18, 2024, and the parties are expected to be ready to begin opening statements that afternoon. United States District Court Northern District of California 8 9 9. Verdict Form: The Court will adopt Impinj’s verdict form, with the following modification: 10 The language “If you answered ‘YES,’ answer the following question. Otherwise, skip to the 11 end and sign the form” shall be removed. 12 10. Injunctive Relief: The Court expects the parties to present evidence of injunctive relief while 13 the jury is deliberating, beginning with NXP. The Court expects this evidence to take no more 14 than five (5) hours in total. The parties shall file, by March 11, 2024, briefs of no more than 15 ten (10) pages outlining their respective positions with regards to injunctive relief as to the 16 ’302 patent. 17 11. Scope of Prior Art: NXP may introduce any evidence it could have presented at the previous 18 trial, and will be precluded from presenting any evidence that it could not have presented at the 19 previous trial. To be clear, NXP will not be permitted to assert any prior art other than the 20 combination of Eberhardt and Ching-San. 21 12. Order of Presentation: The Court finds that, for purposes of clarity of presentation, the trial 22 be presented as a declaratory judgment action for invalidity, with NXP as the counterclaimant 23 and Impinj as the counterclaim-defendant. Accordingly, NXP, as the party bearing the overall 24 burden of proof, will begin by presenting its case-in-chief for invalidity, after which Impinj 25 will present its case-in-chief for validity. NXP will then be given the opportunity to present a 26 rebuttal case, and Impinj will be permitted limited rebuttal on any issues for which it bears the 27 burden of proof (e.g., secondary considerations of nonobviousness). 28 // 2 1 2 a. The parties will each be allotted eight (8) hours total, inclusive of opening statements 3 and closing arguments. This will not include time spent on jury selection, or evidence 4 relating to injunctive relief presented to the Court during jury deliberations. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 13. Other Orders: 12 b. The parties are instructed to provide the court reporter with a glossary of technical terms in advance of trial. c. Impinj’s administrative motion to seal its position statement regarding damages is GRANTED. This order terminates Dkt. No. 512. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 5, 2024 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?