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)

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