Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co., Ltd. et al v. Okin America, Inc. et al
Filing
230
MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting in part and denying in part 137 Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co. and Kaidi, LLC's Motion in Limine to exclude the testimony of Richard Troxel; Granting in part and denying in part 132 Kaidi's Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and testimony of testing James Babcock conducted after submitting his expert infringement report; Approving withdraw of 140 Okin's Motion in Limine to exclude testimony concerning certain allegedly unreliable licenses; Denying 227 Kaidi's Motion to Compel the production of certain allegedly privileged documents; Granting 130 Okin's Motion to exclude any comment on the absence of the patent's inventor, Dietmar Koch, from the trial. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 5/7/2015. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)
,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHANGZHOU KAIDI
ELECTRICAL CO., LTD., et al.
Civil No. CCB-13-1798
v.
OKIN AMERICA, INC., et al.
MEMORANDUM
ORDER
The motions enumerated below were argued at a hearing held on May 6, 2015. My
rulings follow. As noted at the hearing, I reserve the right to issue at a later date full memoranda
explaining at greater length the basis for each ruling.
1. Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co. and Kaidi, LLC's (together, "Kaidi") motion in limine to
exclude the testimony of Richard Troxel, (ECF No. 137), is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part:
a. To the extent Kaidi seeks to preclude Troxel's testimony for failure to apportion
to the royalty base, the motion is DENIED without prejudice, pending the full
presentation of his opinion at trial. Okin may move to strike Troxel's testimony
later, as it sees fit.
b. To the extent Kaidi seeks to preclude Troxel's testimony for failure to consider
available alternatives in the market or Kaidi' s capacity to design around the
patent, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
c. To the extent Kaidi seeks to preclude Troxel from testifying as to foreign sales of
1
'>,
•
the KDPT005, the motion is GRANTED on the basis of the speculative nature of
the proffered testimony.
d. To the extent Kaidi seeks to preclude Troxel from testifying as to untimely
opinions included in his revised report, the motion is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. Troxel will be permitted to testify as to the opinions described
in paragraphs 57, 70, 71, and 104 of the revised report, which are timely
corrections made in light of new information. Troxel may not testify as to the
opinions described in paragraphs 137 through 149 of his revised report, which
critique William Howard's responsive report rather than correct Troxel's former
opinions in light of new information.
2. Okin America, Inc. and DewertOkin GmbH's (together, "Okin") motion in limine to
exclude Howard from testifying as to certain invalidity opinions, (ECF No. 135), will be
granted by a separate opinion to be issued by tomorrow.
3. Kaidi's motion in limine to exclude evidence and testimony of testing James Babcock
conducted after submitting his expert infringement report, (ECF No. 132), is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part:
a. Babcock's "hand twist" tests-in
which he used his hand to twist the slider of the
KDPT005 around the axis along which it usually moves in a linear path,
measuring its range of motion with the spindle cover both attached and
detached-are
unreliable for failure to measure the force applied to the slider.
Babcock cannot testify as to that experiment. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(c); Daubert
V.
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589-90 (1993).
2
•
b. Even if Babcock's remaining tests are untimely, they are either substantially
justified or harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(l).
Babcock thus may testify as to
them.
4. Okin has WITHDRAWN its motion in limine to exclude testimony concerning certain
allegedly unreliable licenses, (ECF No. 140), on the understanding that Kaidi's expert
will not rely on those licenses at trial.
5. Kaidi's motion to compel the production of certain allegedly privileged documents,
which it attached to its Local Rule 104.7 Certificate, (ECF No. 227), is DENIED. The
subject matter of Ok in's voluntary disclosure of certain documents does not include
prosecution of the German Patent Office applications.
See Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)(2).
6. Okin's motion to exclude any comment on the absence of the patent's inventor, Dietmar
Koch, from the trial, (ECF No. 130), is GRANTED.
IfKaidi believes that anything in
Okin's presentation at trial would make Koch's absence relevant, it should renew its
request with the court before making any comment to the jury.
7. The Clerk shall send copies of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum to counsel
of record.
5!-'/>
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge
~
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?