L-3 Communications Corporation v. Sony Corporation et al

Filing 232

MEMORANDUM ORDER providing ruling re 219 Memorandum, and 227 Response.. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/25/2013. (nms) Modified on 10/25/2013 (nms).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

L-3 Communications Corporation,

Plaintiff;

v.

Civil Action No. 10-734-RGA

Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc., and
Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.,

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc., and Sony Mobile
Communications (USA) Inc.'s Memorandum Regarding the Court's Proposed Evidentiary
Rulings During the Pretrial Conference (D.I. 219) and PlaintiffL-3 Communications
Corporation's Response to Sony's Memorandum (D.I. 227).
At issue is the admissibility of Sony's Request for Ex Parte Reexamination as well as the
identity of Sony as the requester. 1 L-3 requests that the Court preclude reference to or
introduction of their arguments and positions as described in Sony's Request for Ex Parte
Reexamination on the grounds that the statements are prejudicial and confusing. (D.I. 227 at 6).
Alternatively, L-3 requests that the Court preclude Sony's Request in its entirety, save for the
actual references attached to the request. !d.
Sony asks that, in order to avoid the prejudicial effect of the failed reexamination request,
the Court preclude any reference to Sony as the requester. (D.I. 219 at 4). Sony argues that ifL-3

1

The issue ofhow to deal with the Court's finding of non-infringement will be dealt with as the Court has
previously indicated, consistent with L-3 's request as set forth in D.I. 227 at pp. 3-4.

tells the jury that Sony filed the reexamination, Sony should be able to explain why the
reexamination was unsuccessful. (D.I. 219 at 2). However, L-3 objects to the explanation, i.e.,
introduction of the Reexamination Request, because it contains numerous statements which are
prejudicial to L-3 and confusing to the jury. (D.I. 227 at 4).
The Court sees no reason why Sony's Request for Ex Parte Reexamination should be
admitted into evidence. Both sides agree that it is prejudicial and that it does not aid the jury
because it is based on claim constructions which were not adopted. Simply removing the
prejudicial statements would be a waste of time and effort, as the remaining contents would not
be relevant. Sony's Request for Ex Parte Reexamination is therefore excluded. Additionally,
because Sony did not participate in the reexamination, except for the initial request, any
reference to Sony as the requester is unfairly prejudicial, and substantially outweighs any
probative value. Fed. R. Evid. 403. For this reason, any references to Sony or to Kenyon &
Kenyon as the requester, either in the rest of the file history or by expert testimony, are
precluded. 2

/DEntered this].;; day of October, 2013.

2

Most of the reexamination file history refers to Kenyon & Kenyon (Sony's trial counsel) as the third party
requester. However, some documents do refer to Sony, specifically in regard to the current litigation.