Hafco Foundry and Machine Company, Incorporated v. GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc.

Filing 78

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: At the final status conference prior to jury selection, held on 5/15/2017, the court indicated that Plaintiff's 69 additional Motion in Limine would be GRANTED but that defendant could ask the court to revisit it s ruling should circumstances arise that made doing so proper. This ruling does not affect Defendant's right to assert a defense of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 5/16/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE
COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-16143

GMS MINE REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s additional motion
in limine asking the court “for an Order prohibiting Defendant
from discussing, offering or eliciting any testimony regarding
`functional elements’ with respect to the `684 Patent.”
69 at p.1).

(ECF No.

At the final status conference prior to jury

selection, held on May 15, 2017, the court indicated that
plaintiff’s motion would be GRANTED but that defendant could ask
the court to revisit its ruling should circumstances arise that
made doing so proper.
Claim construction is entirely a matter for the court and
not the jury.

See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 133 S.

Ct. 831, 835 (2015); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517
U.S. 370, 372 (1996); Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc.,
824 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Moreover, claim
construction is, of course, ultimately a question of law that
must be left to the court, not the jury.”).

Indeed, “it is

improper for juries to hear conflicting expert testimony on the
correctness of a claim construction, given the risk of
confusion.”

Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., 824 F.3d

1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte
Fabricating LTD, 550 F.3d 1356, 1364 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur
court has held that allowing a witness to testify before the jury
on claim construction would be improper.”) (emphasis in
original); CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc., 424 F.3d
1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The risk of confusing the jury is
high when experts opine on claim construction before the jury
even when, as here, the district court makes it clear to the jury
that the district court’s claim constructions control.”); Abbott
Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., Civil Action No. CV-08-S543-NE, 2012 WL 12897958, *13 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 18, 2012) (noting
that a party “should not be permitted to reargue claim
construction issues by presenting any evidence, including expertwitness opinion-testimony, that contradicts th[e] court’s
construction of disputed claims”).
This ruling does not affect defendant’s right to assert a
defense of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2017.
ENTER:

2

David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge