Avco Corporation v. Precision Airmotive LLC

Filing 527

ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry) - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that TNB's 491 motions in limine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Avco's 493 motions in limine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (See Order for further details.) Signed by Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann on 8/31/2022. (jr)

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 527 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AVCO CORPORATION,

No. 4:12-CV-01313

Plaintiff-Counterclaim
Defendant,

(Chief Judge Brann)

v.
TURN AND BANK HOLDINGS,
LLC, AND PRECISION
AIRMOTIVE, LLC,
Defendants-Counterclaim
Plaintiffs,
v.
AVSTAR FUEL SYSTEMS, INC.
Counterclaim Defendant.
ORDER
AUGUST 31, 2022
In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

TNB’s motions in limine (Doc. 491) are GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as follows:
A.

TNB’s motion to exclude evidence related to the validity of the
RSA Marks and evidence underlying Avco/AVStar’s reasons for
adopting “the RSA model designations in the 2009–2011-time

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 527 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 3

frame, the historic use of the model numbers by Avco and others,
whether Avco/AVStar thought the designations were trademarks
when adopted, the meaning of the model designations and similar
information” is granted;
B.

TNB’s motion to exclude from the jury trial evidence related to
actual confusion is granted, although Avco may present evidence
that it had no intent to confuse or deceive when it adopted the
RSA Marks; and

C.

TNB’s motion to exclude from the bench trial evidence related
to actual confusion is denied.

2.

Avco’s motions in limine (Doc. 493) are GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as follows:
A.

Avco’s motion to exclude evidence of safety issues and lawsuits
related to AVStar servos is granted;

B.

Avco’s motion to preclude evidence related to trademark
lawsuits, bankruptcy proceedings, and products liability lawsuits
is granted;

C.

Avco’s motion to exclude evidence of actual confusion is granted
to the extent that such evidence shall be precluded from the jury
trial, and evidence related to a mis-tagged servo shall be
excluded from the bench trial. However, Avco’s motion is denied
2

Case 4:12-cv-01313-MWB Document 527 Filed 08/31/22 Page 3 of 3

as to other evidence of actual confusion that TNB may seek to
present at the bench trial;
D.

Avco’s motion to exclude pleadings, orders, and the settlement
agreement in the North Carolina Case is granted;

E.

Avco’s motion to preclude evidence of other trademark
applications and registrations is granted; and

F.

Avco’s motion to exclude evidence of its continued use of the
RSA Marks during the pendency of this case is denied.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge

3