Automated Merchandis v. Crane Co., et al

Filing 630

ORDER GRANTING CRANE COMPANY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS; granting (484) Motion in Limine in case 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES; granting (520) Motion in Limine in case 3:03-cv-00088-JPB-JES; granting (356) Motion in Limine in case 3:04-cv-00048-JPB -JES; granting (345) Motion in Limine in case 3:04-cv-00075-JPB-JES; granting (353) Motion in Limine in case 3:04-cv-00080-JPB-JES. AMS is PRECLUDED from offering any evidence or testimony at trial th at Crane infringes any of the asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 2/27/2012. Associated Cases: 3:03-cv-00088-JPB-JES, 3:04-cv-00048-JPB -JES, 3:04-cv-00075-JPB-JES, 3:04-cv-00080-JPB-JES, 3:08-cv-00097-JPB-JES(tlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

AUTOMATED MERCHANDISING
SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-88(L)
(Consolidated with 3:08-CV97, 3:04-CV80,
3:04-CV-75, and 3:04-CV-48)
(BAILEY)

CRANE COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING CRANE COMPANY’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8
TO PRECLUDE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
Pending before this Court is defendant Crane Company’s (“Crane”) Motion in Limine
No. 8 to Preclude Trial Testimony on Doctrine of Equivalents [Doc. 520], filed February 10,
2012. Plaintiff Automated Merchandising Systems, Inc.’s (“AMS”) responded on February
24, 2012 [Doc. 608]. Having reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, this
Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED.

To date, AMS has limited its

infringement contentions to literal infringement and has not identified infringement under
the doctrine of equivalents in either its infringement contentions or expert reports. In the
instant motion, therefore, Crane moves to preclude AMS from offering any evidence or
testimony at trial that Crane infringes any of the asserted claims under the doctrine of
equivalents. In its response, AMS argues that Crane’s motion should be denied as moot,
noting that “[i]t is possible that the occurrences of trial will suggest an appropriate assertion
1

of the doctrine of equivalents.” ([Doc. 608] at 1).
This Court disagrees with AMS that trial is an appropriate time for a decision of
whether it should assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Discovery has long
since been closed and trial is scheduled to commence in little more than three weeks. In
order to prepare a defense to the any theory under the doctrine of equivalents, Crane
would need to be given proper notice of AMS’ contentions. To allow a new theory to be
asserted for the first time at trial would be unduly prejudicial to Crane. As such, AMS is
hereby PRECLUDED from offering any evidence or testimony at trial that Crane infringes
any of the asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents. Accord Microstrategy Inc.
v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nike, Inc. v. Addidas Am.,
Inc., 479 F.Supp.2d 664, 670 (E.D. Tex. 2007); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power
Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Crane’s Motion in Limine
No. 8 [Doc. 520] is hereby GRANTED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record herein.
DATED: February 27, 2012.

2