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

Filing 254

ORDER denying 196 Motion in Limine to Preclude the Introduction of Evidence Related to HemCon's Lack of Enablement Defense and Natural Products Defense. 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 relating to its enablement and natural product defenses. In support, Marine Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

Polymer asserts that the court previously ruled in Marine Polymer's favor on those defenses. HemCon objects, contending

that the defenses have not been resolved. HemCon raised its enablement and natural product defenses in support of its motion for summary judgment. motion on July 9, 2009. Dkt. no. 146. The court denied the

Although the court noted

that the specification enabled at least one mode of making and using the invention, that determination merely established that HemCon had not demonstrated for purposes of summary judgment that the description of the invention was insufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Similarly, the court concluded

that HemCon had not shown, for purposes of summary judgment, that the `245 patent covers products of nature. No order dismissed

those defenses.

Therefore, HemCon may introduce evidence in

support of these defenses at trial.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion in limine (document no. 196) is denied. 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