Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Enova Tech. Corp. v. Initio Corp., C.A. No. 10-04-LPS, Order (D. Del. Jan 1, 2013).

Enova Tech. Corp. v. Initio Corp., C.A. No. 10-04-LPS, Order (D. Del. Jan 1, 2013).

Ratings: (0)|Views: 38 |Likes:
Published by YCSTBlog
Enova Tech. Corp. v. Initio Corp., C.A. No. 10-04-LPS, Order (D. Del. Jan 1, 2013).
Enova Tech. Corp. v. Initio Corp., C.A. No. 10-04-LPS, Order (D. Del. Jan 1, 2013).

More info:

Published by: YCSTBlog on Feb 07, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/19/2013

pdf

text

original

 
]
i
l
l
1
l
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ENOV A TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
V.
C.A. No.
1
0-04-LPS
INITIO CORPORATION,
ET
AL.,
Defendants.
ORDER
At Wilmington this
31st
day
of
January, 2013,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1.
Plaintiffs motion in limine
1,
seeking to preclude Defendants from introducing attrial or relying upon evidence or argument regarding foreign patent proceedings, disputes,prosecution, or enforcement involving Enova's foreign patent rights, is
GRANTED
with respectto the forthcoming jury trial and
DENIED
with respect to the bench trial
on
inequitable conduct.As concerns the jury trial, admission
of
such evidence is not relevant and, even
if
it were, itsprobative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger
of
unfair prejudice andconfusion, making exclusion proper under Federal Rule
of
Evidence ("Rule") 403.
2.
Plaintiffs motion in limine 2, seeking, to preclude Defendants' testimony oropinions
of
their expert, Dr. Andrew Wolfe, regarding the value
ofEnova's
patented technologyand the value and availability
of
non-infringing alternatives, is
DENIED.
This is an untimely
Daubert
motion. Additionally, the evidence Plaintiff seeks to exclude is relevant and itsprobative value is not substantially outweighed by th¢ danger
of
unfair prejudice, confusion, or
1
Case 1:10-cv-00004-LPS Document 458 Filed 01/31/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 16354
 
 
1
I
l
j
ii
'~
l
1
I
I
l
l
I
I
i
any
of
the other considerations
of
Rule 403.
3.
Plaintiffs motion in limine 3, seeking to exclude testimony and argumentinconsistent with the Court's claim construction, is
GRANTED.
All parties agree that suchevidence and argument will not be permitted.
4.
Plaintiffs motion in limine 4, seeking to exclude evidence regarding "unrelated"licenses not comparable to the hypothetical licenses
at
issue in this case, is
DENIED.
The Courtis not persuaded that the licenses at issue are so non-comparable as to be irrelevant or to rendertheir probative value so minimal as to be substantially outweighed by the concerns embodied inRule 403. Plaintiffs concerns are best be addressed through cross-examination
of
Defendants'witnesses as well as presentation
of
competing evidence.
5.
Defendants' motion in limine
1,
seeking to preclude any mention or use
of
Buffalo's settlement with Enova, is
DENIED.
The parties' experts may offer their competinganalyses as to the weight,
if
any, to be given to this settlement. The Court is not persuaded thatuse
of
the settlement agreement is barred by Rule 408 or that its admission is improper under theweighing required by Rule 403.
6.
Defendants' motion in limine 2, seeking to preclude improper or insufficient pre-suit knowledge
of
the patents-in-suit, is
GRANTED.
Plaintiff fails to address Defendants'arguments. Additionally, the Court is persuaded that the evidence at issue is inadmissiblehearsay
(see
Rule 802) and that any probative value
of
such evidence is substantially outweighed
by
the risk
of
undue prejudice and confusion, making exclusion proper under Rule 403.
7.
Defendants' motion in limine 3, seeking to preclude evidence
of
lost sales orprice erosion, is
GRANTED.
Plaintiff is not seeking, and cannot demonstrate, lost sales or price2
Case 1:10-cv-00004-LPS Document 458 Filed 01/31/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 16355

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->