Au New Haven, LLC et al v. YKK Corporation
Filing 789
ORDER terminating 634 Motion to Amend/Correct 634 MOTION to Amend/Correct Trial Exhibits and to Add Deposition Entries., 640 MOTION in Limine ., 642 MOTION in Limine No. 12 re extraterritorial application o f the Lanham Act., 644 MOTION in Limine No. 13 to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument that Plaintiffs' foreign patents are relevant to willful infringment., 646 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to exclude evidence and argument regarding claims resolved on Summary Judgment., 648 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to limit testimony of Expert James Donohue Before the Jury., 650 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to limit Plaintiffs' Damages A llegations According to the Issuance Date of the Japanese Patent at Issue., 652 MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Preclude Certain of Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits., 654 MOTION in Limine No. 18 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Prese nting Deposition Testimony Non-Sequentially., 747 JOINT MOTION Entry of Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 639 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, ., 775 MOTION in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Referring to Plaintiff "Au New Have, LLC" as "Uretek.". ; terminating 640 Motion in Limine; terminating 642 Motion in Limine; terminating 644 Motion in Limine; terminating 646 Motion in Limine; terminating 648 Motion in Limine; termin ating 650 Motion in Limine; terminating 652 Motion in Limine; terminating 654 Motion in Limine; terminating 747 Motion re: 634 MOTION to Amend/Correct Trial Exhibits and to Add Deposition Entries., 640 MOTION in L imine ., 642 MOTION in Limine No. 12 re extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act., 644 MOTION in Limine No. 13 to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument that Plaintiffs' foreign patents are relevant to willful infringment., 646 MOTION in Limine No. 14 to exclude evidence and argument regarding claims resolved on Summary Judgment., 648 MOTION in Limine No. 15 to limit testimony of Expert James Donohue Before t he Jury., 650 MOTION in Limine No. 16 to limit Plaintiffs' Damages Allegations According to the Issuance Date of the Japanese Patent at Issue., 652 MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Preclude Certain of Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits., 654 MOTION in Limine No. 18 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Presenting Deposition Testimony Non-Sequentially., 747 JOINT MOTION Entry of Pretrial Scheduling Order re: 639 Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings, ., 775 MOTION in Limine No. 19 to Preclude Plaintiffs from Referring to Plaintiff "Au New Have, LLC" as "Uretek.". ; terminating 775 Motion in LimineThe Court has reviewed the parties' September 26, 2021 letter s regarding trial dates. A jury trial in this matter will begin on Monday, August 29, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. The Court will hold a final pretrial conference in this case on Monday, July 25, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Both the final pretrial conference and the jur y trial will be held in Courtroom 12C of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Given the new trial dates, the Court is also termi nating the pre-trial motions currently pending, which it will resolve prior to the final pretrial conference. The parties are directed to submit the following materials no later than June 3, 2022: (1) the joint pretrial order and other submissions pe rmitted or required under Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, (2) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable description of the case, to be read to the venire, and (3) a proposed brief, mutually acceptable overview o f the applicable law, to be read to the jury as part of the Court's initial instructions prior to opening statements. The Clerk of Court is ordered to terminate the motions currently pending at Dkt. Nos. 634, 640, 642, 644, 646, 648, 650, 652, 654, 747, and 775. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/26/2021) (rro)
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.
