Carl Zeiss Vision International GMBH et al v. Signet Armorlite Inc

Filing 810

ORDER on Motions in Limine: Granting in part and denying in part 704 Motion in Limine No. 1 Regarding Inadmissibility of Various European Opposition Proceedings; Denying 711 Motion in Limine to Clear the Courtroom During Testimony Regarding Confi dential Financial Matters; granting 712 Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses From the Courtroom During Trial Prior to Their Testimony; denying 713 Motion in Limine to Preclude Zeiss From Contesting the Substantive Involvement of Persons Listed o n Privilege Log; denying 714 Motion in Limine to Prevent Zeiss From Asserting a Date of Invention of the '713 Patent That is Earlier than January 16, 1997; denying 715 Motion in Limine that Essilor Not be Joined as a Party; denying 716 Mot ion in Limine to Exclude Matters Not in Controversy; denying 717 Motion in Limine No. 2 to Limit Opinion Testimony and Restrict Evidence Regarding Invalidity to That Set Forth in Defendants' Final Invalidity Contentions; denying 719 Motion i n Limine No. 4 to Preclude Evidence Concerning the Seiko-Zeiss License as Irrelevant; denying 720 Motion in Limine in Limine No. 5 Regarding Micro Optics Documents and Statements; granting in part and denying in part 721 Motion in Limine No. 6 Re garding Use of Arbitration Documents in Damages Case; granting in part and denying in part 722 Motion in Limine No. 7 to Preclude Evidence Concerning the Court's Orders on Standing and Discovery; denying 724 Motion in Limine No. 10 to Preclude Testimony Regarding the Mukaiyama '470 Patent as Irrelevant; denying 725 Motion in Limine No. 11 Regarding Carl Zeiss Vision GMBH, Carl Zeiss Stiftung and Carl Zeiss AG. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 5/10/10. (lao)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL GMBH and CARL ZEISS VISION INC.,, vs. SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC., Defendant. ____________________________________ AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. The parties' motions in limine came on for hearing on May 7, 2010. Eric Weisblatt, Susan Yohe and Samuel Braver appeared and argued on behalf of Plaintiff, and Richard Schnurr, Brian Lum, John Wynne, Kevin Wheeler and Douglas Lytle appeared and argued on behalf of Defendant. After thoroughly reviewing the parties' briefs and hearing oral argument, the Court issues the following rulings: 1. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 1 is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 07cv0894 DMS (POR) ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

motion is granted as to factual findings of the European Patent Office, and denied as to admissions fairly attributable to Plaintiff. 2. 3. 4. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 2 is denied. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 3 is denied. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 4 is denied. -1-

07cv0894

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5. 6.

Plaintiff's motion in limine number 5 is denied. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 6 is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the

motion is granted as to factual findings of the arbitration proceedings, and denied as to admissions fairly attributable to Plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 7 is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the

motion is granted as to discovery orders, and denied as to the orders on standing. In addition, the Court reminds counsel that settlement discussions are inadmissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 8 is denied. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 9 is denied. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 10 is denied. Plaintiff's motion in limine number 11 is denied. Defendant's motion in limine to exclude Zeiss's expert witnesses testimony based upon late-

produced documents, documents/issues previously excluded by the Court or matters beyond the scope of their expert reports is denied. Signet's experts may opine on the recently identified patents, and they may be examined by Zeiss on any such opinions at their depositions scheduled for later this week.

13.

Defendant's motion in limine to preclude and limit testimony and evidence by Plaintiff and

damages expert John Jarosz concerning reasonably royalty damage is denied as to the Patent & Technology Agreements and Manufacturing & Distribution Agreements, granted as to the doubling of the reasonable royalty rate, and denied as moot as to excluded documents and issues. 14. Defendant's motion in limine to preclude evidence, argument, references or testimony of Zeiss

counsel, witnesses and damages expert John C. Jarosz regarding lost profits - licensing fees and for an order limiting damages to proof of reasonably royalty is granted. 15. Defendant's motion in limine to preclude Zeiss from contesting the substantive involvement

of persons listed on the privilege log is denied.

-2-

07cv0894

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16.

Defendant's motion in limine to exclude witnesses from the courtroom during trial prior to

their testimony is granted, with the exception of the parties' designated corporate representatives, including Ms. Roberts. 17. Defendant's motion in limine to clear the courtroom during testimony regarding confidential

financial matters is denied without prejudice. The Court will proceed on this issue according to Zeiss's proposal, and as set forth by the Court at the hearing on the motions in limine. 18. Defendant's motion in limine to exclude matters not in controversy regarding SVS Vision and

Sight Systems of the Carolinas is denied. 19. Defendant's motion in limine for an order establishing Noerr-Pennington immunity does not

apply due to Zeiss's fraud and misrepresentations to the Court and lack of standing is denied. 20. Defendant's motion in limine to prevent Zeiss from asserting a date of invention of the `713

Patent that is earlier than January 16, 1997, is denied as moot. 21. Defendant's motion in limine that Essilor not be joined as a party is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 10, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge

-3-

07cv0894