Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation et al

Filing 573

MEMORANDUM ORDER re various pretrial rulings. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 1/5/16. This order has been emailed to local counsel. (ntl) (Main Document 573 unsealed and replaced on 1/7/2016) (ntl). Modified on 1/7/2016 (ntl).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

GREATBATCH LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.

C.A. No. 13-723-LPS
AVX CORPORATION and
AVX FILTERS CORPORATION,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this 5th day of January, 2016:
Having reviewed the parties' filings (D.I. 564, 564-1, 566-70) related to matters covered
at the December 22, 2015 Pretrial Conference,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1.

Plaintiff Greatbatch Ltd. ' s ("Greatbatch" or "Plaintiff') request that the Court

decide the issue of infringement of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,905 ,627 ('"627 patent") as a
matter oflaw (see D.I. 566 at 1-2) is DENIED. There are genuine disputes of material fact with
respect to this issue, including at least "whether the radiofrequency antenna hole in the accused
devices is part of the feedthrough filter capacitor, i.e., how to apply the term ' feedthrough filter
capacitor' to the accused devices." (D.I. 569 at 1)
2.

Greatbatch's request to preclude Defendants AVX Corporation and AVX Filters

Corporation ("AVX" or "Defendants") from presenting arguments at trial that claim 12 of the
' 627 patent is obvious in light of certain Medtronic prior art is GRANTED. AVX did not
1

disclose, in their expert reports or invalidity contentions, an argument that claim 12 of the ' 627
patent is obvious in light of that certain Medtronic prior art. (See D.I. 566 at 2)

3.

Greatbatch' s request to preclude AVX from presenting any derivation argument

with respect to claim 12 of the ' 627 patent at trial is GRANTED. A VX did not disclose, in their
expert reports or invalidity contentions, an argument that claim 12 of the ' 627 patent is invalid
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(±). (See D.I. 566 at 2-3)
4.

With respect to the parties' dispute as to the sequestration of Professor Stevenson,

who will testify as both a fact and expert witness, the Court will permit Stevenson to be present
in the courtroom for testimony of other witnesses whose testimony relates to issues on which
Stevenson is being permitted to opine as an expert, as well as the testimony of all witnesses after
Stevenson has concluded all of his testimony as a fact witness . At all other times, Stevenson will
be treated as a fact witness and sequestered accordingly. The Court will resolve at trial any
disputes as to implementation of these rulings .
5.

A VX' s request that Dr. Spingam be precluded from testifying at trial (D.I. 567 at

1) is GRANTED, provided that A VX adheres to its representation that it will not challenge on
authenticity grounds the admissibility of the documents prepared by labs retained by Greatbatch.

(See D.I. 567 at 1)
6.

Regarding Defendants ' late production of documents (see generally D.I. 564, 564-

1, 570), the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs requested relief (see D.I. 570 at 7), with modifications, as
follows: (1) Greatbatch SHALL be permitted to conduct post-trial discovery into AVX' s efforts
to collect and produce documents regarding the Ingenio products; (2) A VX SHALL PRODUCE
to Plaintiff a privilege log for all Ingenio documents, but may do so after trial by a date that will
2

be determined by the Court; without knowledge of the quantity of documents with respect to
which A VX is asserting privilege, and given that trial is just six (6) days away, the Court is
unwilling to order the diversion of the parties ' limited pretrial resources into the preparation of a
privilege log and potential disputes as to its sufficiency; (3) the Court' s grant of summary
judgment of no willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,888,715 ('" 715 patent") is VACATED;
and (4) the Court GRANTS summary judgment that AVX's Ingenio FFTs infringe the ' 715
patent. The foregoing relief is warranted. 1 It would be unfairly prejudicial to require Greatbatch
to prove at trial infringement of the ' 715 patent by a product for which AVX has only now
produced core technical documents. There is insufficient time before trial to ameliorate this
unfair prejudice (e.g., through further discovery and other limited relief proposed by A VX). IT

IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than January 6, 2016, the parties, after meeting and
conferring, shall file a proposed order to modify any prior order(s) of the Court as necessary to
reflect the relief now being granted to Greatbatch by operation of the instant order.

'See generally D.I. 570 at 1-2 (Greatbatch explaining it is seeking admittedly "severe"
relief based on "egregious discovery misconduct" "bearing on a central issue of infringement"
" [i]n this contentious litigation between direct competitors"); D.I. 564-1at1-2 (AVX' s counsel
acknowledging that his prior representation that the design change in the accused product was not
to any degree made to avoid infringement must now be "correct[ ed]" to state that implementation
of that change was, in fact, " informed" in part by "patent infringement concerns," thereby
necessitating the late production of additional core technical documents) .
3

Because this order has been issued under seal, the parties shall meet and confer and
submit, no later than January 6, 2016, any proposed redactions. Thereafter, the Court will
make its order publicly-available.

HON. L ONARD P. ST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4