Waterton Polymer Products USA et al v. Edizone

Filing 131

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Pertinent to Willfulness. 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
PRODUCTS, LTD.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
EVIDENCE PERTINENT TO
WILLFULNESS

Plaintiffs,
v.
EDIZONE, LLC,

Case No. 2:12-CV-17 TS

Defendant.

District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence
Pertinent to Willfulness. Through their Motion, Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendant from
introducing evidence pertaining to willful infringement, including testimony from Barry McCann
and/or Rex Haddock, as well as documents allegedly pertaining to Plaintiffs’ marketing efforts in
the United States, and communications with McCann and/or Haddock. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.
In response to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendant represents that it will not be introducing
evidence or arguing that Plaintiffs’ infringement was willful. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs’
Motion seeks to preclude Defendant from asserting a claim for willful infringement, it will be
granted.
Defendant nevertheless argues that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied as it seeks to
exclude evidence that is otherwise relevant to the jury’s consideration of a reasonable royalty.
The Court agrees. It appears that at least some of the evidence Plaintiffs seek to exclude may be

1

relevant under one or more of the factors delineated in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States
Plywood Corp. 1 Evidence that is relevant under these factors will not be excluded, provided that
evidence is admissible under 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 Pertaining to
Willfulness (Docket No. 107) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth
above.
DATED this 6th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

1

318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

2