with other similarly marked documents. For example, during the deposition of StephenBellofatto who is a product developer by an outside company that implements the use-relatedfeatures of E-Z-EM’s Empower injectors, Mr. Ruttenberg attempted to question Mr. Bellofattoabout a design document. Mr. Bennett allegedly refused to allow Mr. Bellofatto look at thedocument.To the extent that either party hindered the cross-examination of a witness on a topic, theCourt will not allow that party to present the witness’ testimony on that topic at trial. The CourtGRANTS this motion in part.
Preclude admission of the dollar amounts in settlement agreementsmade under the threat of litigation
Mallinckrodt argues that the evidence of the amounts of prior settlements made under thethreat of litigation raises an unreasonable risk of unfair prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thegeneral rule is that royalties paid to avoid litigation are not a reliable indicator of the value of apatent.
See Automation Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.
, 587 F.Supp.2d 794, 801 (E.D. Tex. 2007).However, where a settlement agreement involves the same patent or technology, they may behighly relevant, notwithstanding their origins.
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.
, 594 F.3d860 (Fed.Cir.2010);
Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.
, 2010 WL 903259 (E.D. Tex.2010).This motion is GRANTED as to all licenses except those that are sufficiently similar.
Preclude evidence and argument concerning product liability lawsuitsand judgments
This motion is GRANTED per Rule 403.
Preclude evidence of reexamination proceedings of the patent-in-suit
The fact that there are reexamination proceedings and a decision has been made by thePTO is not probative of any element regarding any claim of invalidity.
Procter & Gamble Co. v.