Waterton Polymer Products USA et al v. Edizone
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument Regarding the Court's Claim Construction, Summary Judgment Rulings, and the Issue of Infringement. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 11/6/2014. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
WATERTON POLYMER PRODUCTS
USA, LLC; WATERTON POLYMER
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT
REGARDING THE COURT’S CLAIM
JUDGMENT RULINGS, AND THE ISSUE
Case No. 2:12-CV-17 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or
Argument Regarding the Court’s Claim Construction, Summary Judgment Rulings, and the Issue
of Infringement. Through their Motion, Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendant from introducing
evidence pertaining to the Court’s claim construction and summary judgment rulings, as well as
evidence pertinent to infringement. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to exclude remarks by counsel
for Defendant regarding the Court’s rulings, copies of the patents-in-suit, samples of Plaintiffs’
products, photographs of Plaintiffs’ production line, and documents evidencing Plaintiffs’
alleged marketing efforts. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion in
part and deny it in part.
Plaintiffs argue that their requested relief should be granted for two reasons. First,
Plaintiffs argue that the upcoming trial is limited to damages and that, other than being informed
that the Court has found infringement, the jury need not be informed of the Court’s prior rulings
or infringement generally. Second, Plaintiffs argue that any probative value that such evidence
may have will be substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice or jury confusion.
Defendant agrees that the jury should be informed of infringement and states that it does
not intend to offer into evidence the Court’s written rulings or otherwise attempt to retry the
issue of infringement. Defendant also states that it no longer intends to introduce photographs of
Plaintiffs’ production line. However, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to exclude
otherwise relevant evidence.
The Court will not permit either party to introduce the Court’s prior rulings as evidence.
However, the Court will allow the parties to reference the Court’s rulings to the extent necessary
to put this dispute into context for the jury. Further, the Court will not exclude evidence simply
because it pertains to infringement. The Court will allow the introduction of evidence that is
relevant to the jury’s consideration of a reasonable royalty, 1 subject to Federal Rule of Evidence
403. Objections to specific evidence may be raised at trial.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence or Argument
Regarding the Court’s Claim Construction, Summary Judgment Rulings, and the Issue of
Infringement (Docket No. 108) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth
See Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.
DATED this 6th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
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?