Luv N Care Ltd v. Groupo Rimar

Filing 240

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 191 Motion in Limine to Disallow Any Testimony and/or Evidence Re Patents, subject to the Court's caution to Suavinex's counsel and a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. Signed by Judge Terry A Doughty on 3/27/2018. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

LUV N’ CARE, LTD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2491

VERSUS

JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY

GROUPO RIMAR, AKA SUAVINEX

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Luv n’ Care, Ltd.’s (“LNC”) “Motion in Limine to
Disallow Any Testimony and/or Evidence Re Patents.”[Doc. No. 191]. Defendant Groupo
Rimar aka Suavinex (“Suavinex”) opposes the motion. [Doc. No. 217].
This is a breach of contract suit between LNC and Suavinex based on the parties’ 2012
Termination Agreement and Mutual Release (“2012 Termination Agreement”). The 2012
Termination Agreement prohibited either party from copying, utilizing, disclosing, or making
accessible certain listed items, including products, product designs, trade secrets, formulae,
patents, drawings, business plans, prototypes, packaging, procedures and methods, and any other
proprietary designs or information, without the other party’s consent. LNC’s Amended
Complaint alleged that Suavinex breached the 2012 Termination Agreement by selling products
that closely resembled its own. Thus, the issue to be presented to the jury is whether Suavinex
copied LNC’s proprietary products in violation of the 2012 Termination Agreement.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, LNC moves the Court to exclude all
witnesses and evidence that discuss or “even mention[ ] any part of the Intellectual Property in
1

general, and patents in particular as this is nothing more than a way for [Suavinex] to insert legal
issues of Intellectual Property law into evidence which are inappropriate and not at issue . . . and
will confuse the jury on legal issues re patents and other Intellectual Property which is not
applicable or relevant here.” [Doc. No. 191, p. 5]. In response, Sauvinex agrees that only a
breach of contract claim remains, but argues that evidence of patents, as discussed in their
expert’s report, is “relevant and non-prejudicial, not because they are patents, but because these
documents, just like any other publication or commercial documents, show as of the date of their
public availability . . . features and functions within the public domain and developed by entities
other than LNC.” [Doc. No. 217, p. 2]. For example, Suavinex intends to offer into evidence a
patent by the Gerber Co. that was in existence for a decade prior to LNC’s product development
and used some of the same features for its pacifier that LNC claims Suavinex copied.
First, the Court finds that the cited evidence is relevant to the remaining claim and issues
at trial. Rule 401 defines “‘[r]elevant evidence’ . . . [as] evidence having any tendency to make
the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable
or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” FED. R. EVID. 401. LNC contends that
Suavinex copied its products based on a comparison of the design features of the two companies’
products. Accordingly, evidence that these design features were already incorporated to the
products for which another company previously obtained a patent is relevant to the claim and
issues.
However, even if relevant, under Rule 403, “evidence may be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation
of cumulative evidence.” FED. R. EVID. 403. While there could be some issue of confusion to the
2

jury, the Court finds that this danger does not substantially outweigh the evidence’s relevance.
Counsel for Suavinex is cautioned to focus their questioning of witnesses and presentation of
evidence on the copying claim, but Court will not exclude all evidence or even mention of
intellectual property or patents. If LNC so desires, the Court will consider a limiting instruction
to the jury to further address any possible prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that LNC’s Motion in Limine to Disallow Any Testimony and/or
Evidence Re Patents” [Doc. No. 191] is DENIED, subject to the Court’s caution to Suavinex’s
counsel and a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 27th day of March, 2018.

TERRY A. DOUGHTY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3