Wyers et al v. Master Lock Company

Filing 258

ORDER. Defendants Motion in Limine to Preclude the Issue of Willfulness as a Matter of Law 215 is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence Related to Wyers Alleged Lost Profits 214 is GRANTED unconditionally. Defendants Motio n in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Past Potential Business Arrangements Between the Parties 213 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. At the hearing, Plaintiff brought to the Courts attention a prior order in an earlier case dismissing Mast er Locks claims of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,055,832 with prejudice. The parties shall have up to and including Thursday, 02/26/2009, to file simultaneous briefs on this issue. No written response shall be allowed by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 02/24/2009.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE Civil Case No. 06-cv-00619-LTB PHILIP W. WYERS, a Colorado resident, and, WYERS PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs, v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ For the reasons stated on the record at the motions hearing in this matter held on February 24, 2009: 1. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Preclude the Issue of Willfulness as a Matter of

Law [Docket # 215] is DENIED AS MOOT; 2. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence Related to Wyers' Alleged Lost

Profits [Docket # 214] is GRANTED unconditionally; 3. Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Past Potential

Business Arrangements Between the Parties [Docket # 213] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. To the extent the motion seeks to exclude evidence pertaining to willful

infringement or lost profits, the motion is GRANTED unconditionally;

b.

To the extent the motion seeks to exclude evidence pertaining to the

obviousness or non-obviousness of Plaintiffs' patents--or secondary indicia thereof--the motion is conditionally DENIED; 4. To the extent Plaintiffs orally moved for a continuance of the trial date, such

motion is DENIED; 5. At the hearing, Plaintiff brought to the Court's attention a prior order in an earlier

case dismissing Master Lock's claims of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,055,832 with prejudice. Plaintiff argues the dismissal with prejudice should serve as res judicata on the issue of validity here. Defendant argues the prior order is not necessarily dispositive in this case. The parties shall have up to and including Thursday, February 26, 2009, to file simultaneous briefs on this issue. No written response shall be allowed.

Dated: February

24 , 2009.

BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

2