Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.

Filing 251

ORDER granting to extent allowed in order 199 Motion in Limine to Preclude the Introduction by HemCon of Evidence Related to the Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,864,245; granting to extent allowed in order 200 Motion in Limine to Preclude the Introduction by HemCon of Evidence Related to the Vascular Solutions v. Marine Polymer Product Disparagement Case. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. (dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. ORDER Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. moves in limine to preclude HemCon, Inc. from introducing evidence at trial related to Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Marine Polymer Techs., Inc., 590 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2009), and to the reexamination proceeding. HemCon objects to both motions on the ground that the "related to" language is too broad. HemCon agrees that evidence of the Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

Vascular Solutions case and of the reexamination proceeding will not be introduced, subject to its reservation of rights. HemCon explains that evidence pertinent to its invalidity defenses in this case will also be introduced in the reexamination proceeding. Similarly, HemCon contends that

testimony given in the Vascular Solutions case about Marine Polymer's employees' responsibilities, competing products, and other impeachment evidence are relevant in this case. HemCon

agrees that it will not introduce evidence, statements, or arguments which indicate that the USPTO has granted HemCon's request for reexamination of the `245 patent, or evidence,

statements, or arguments which are directly related to the claim and allegations of product disparagement, the verdict, and the appeal in Vascular Solutions, unless Marine Polymer "opens the door" to such evidence.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Marine Polymer's motions in limine to preclude evidence related to the reexamination proceeding (document no. 199) and the Vascular Solutions case (document no. 200) are granted to the extent allowed in this order. Before introducing any evidence related to the

reexamination proceeding or the Vascular Solutions case, HemCon shall notify the court and opposing counsel and shall not introduce such evidence without prior approval of the court. SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge March 30, 2010 cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire Garet K. Galster, Esquire Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire Heather E. Krans, Esquire Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire Brian M. Poissant, Esquire Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire Daniel E. Will, Esquire Leigh S. Willey, Esquire 2