In the District of Delaware, Daubert motions (i.e., motions to exclude expert testimony under FRE 702) are normally due at the same time as case dispositive motions, and often share a page limit.
This makes a lot of sense, since Daubert motions are often more or less dispositive of central substantive issues in the case. Sometimes, if the party cannot present expert testimony on a particular substantive issue, they essentially just lose (although for other things, not so much).
Often, parties will present their primary Daubert issues at the deadline, only to realize later on that there are other lingering issues that fit the Rule 702 case law. …
How many attorneys would have made the choice to re-assert § 101 at trial after conclusively losing on that issue at the MTD stage? Not many, I'm guessing.Oliver Roos, Unsplash
I still remember when, as a first-year associate (circa 2009), a senior attorney explained to me that courts will not hold a patent "valid," and instead will normally only say that it is "not invalid." It seemed like a bit of a silly distinction at the time, but it actually makes perfect sense, and it has come up again and again in my practice since then.
Courts do not typically hold that a patent is "valid" because that would suggest it is impervious to future challenges. Instead, courts often hold that a patent is "not invalid," i.e., that the moving party in a case before the Court failed to show that the patent was invalid due to some circumstance. That language recognizes that another party on another day might yet prove the opposite: that the patent is invalid.
This came up recently in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Natera, Inc., C.A. No. 21-669-GBW (D. Del.). In that case, the defendant had originally brought a motion to dismiss on § 101 grounds, and Judge Stark denied it. Id., D.I. 28 at 7.
Now, almost four years later and in the lead-up to trial, the plaintiff moved in limine to preclude the defendant from re-raising its failed § 101 argument:
Plaintiff "seeks to preclude Natera from presenting argument or evidence regarding patent eligibility of the Asserted Patents under § 101." . . . Plaintiff contends that such preclusion is warranted because (purportedly) "[t]he Court has already spoken on patent eligibility and has ruled that the Asserted Patents are directed to eligible subject matter."
Id., D.I. 325 at 4.
The Court denied the motion, and will permit the defendant to re-raise its § 101 argument at trial. The Court offered ...
The Court has held in the past that motions in limine cannot be used to bring stealth summary judgment or Daubert motions after the deadlines for those motions (we first posted about this issue over four years ago—wow).
Last week, this issue came up again, this time with a party overtly asking the Court for two additional MILs, beyond the default three, specifically to address summary judgment issues. Unsurprisingly, the Court did not grant the motion:
Defendants seek . . . permission to file two motions in limine beyond the three motions in limine permitted by the Scheduling Order. . . . In Defendants' words: "Two requests will seek to exclude certain exhibits and testimony …
When the Court says "unless they open the door," typically you'd want to stay far away from that door.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
There is a lot of precedent in D. Del. regarding when the parties can and can't present evidence from post-grant patent proceedings such as IPRs. Most often, the Court holds that such evidence is inadmissible or constrained, to prevent it from unduly influencing the jury. "We already won this once" can be a powerful argument.
Last week, Judge Williams issued an opinion taking the usual position as to most evidence. But the Court also held that simply asserting a prior art reference that was raised in post-grant proceedings opens the door for the patentee to introduce …
There's a patent trial starting on Monday in Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Finch Therapeutics Group, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1694-JLH (D. Del.), and filings are flying back and forth across the docket this week. The Court's order on motions in limine included this line, which piqued my interest:
To say that the Court is troubled by the occurrences to date would be an extreme understatement.
What was so troubling? It's tough to decipher exactly what is going on from the docket, which is fragmented and redacted. But it has to do with the parties' actions related to an inventor of certain of the asserted patents.
Maybe it's just me, but pre-trial evidentiary opinions are always fun to read. They often involve rules that don't come up in other written opinions, and all of the rulings tend to be highly impactful for trial (otherwise the parties wouldn't be spending their extremely limited pre-trial time and MILs on the issues).
We got an opinion from Judge Bryson last week on pre-trial evidentiary issues in Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., C.A. No. 16-453-WCB (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2024). There are a number of interesting rulings in it, but one in particular that is worth calling out involved whether a party can offer evidence of past licenses to prove damages. …
Shh. They're not "invalid," they're "canceled" and "in the public domain"Kristina Flour, Unsplash
Yesterday Nate wrote about Judge Bryson's opinion that a plaintiff was not bound by its prior allegation that a product infringed two claims, because plaintiff's statement deals with an issue of law, not fact.
Today, I think it's worth discussing another aspect of the same decision, where Judge Bryson addressed a motion by plaintiff to preclude the defendant from discussing the same two invalid claims, claims 9 & 9 of the two asserted patents.
The the PTAB canceled claims 9 and 9 in an IPR, and plaintiff now asserts only claims that depend on those two canceled claims. It moved to prevent defendant from …
Ouch. This week in MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics LLC, C.A. No. 18-1530-JDW (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2023), Judge Wolson addressed a motion in limine to exclude testimony from both of the accused infringer's witnesses on their prior use defense.
The accused infringer didn't offer expert testimony at all on invalidity, according to the briefing. D.I. 399 at 3. Instead, it asserted a prior use defense in its contentions, presumably intending get it in through fact witness testimony.
The patentee first moved in limine to preclude the defense due to a lack of expert testimony. But the Court held that a party can present an invalidity defense without it—and compared the motion to an improper SJ motion:
The first part of AB’s Motion In Limine #1 is a summary judgment motion in disguise. MED-EL asserts invalidity in this case. If AB had a basis to argue that the absence of expert testimony dooms that claim, then it should have moved for summary judgment on the issue. It didn’t, and it can’t use an in limine motion to dispose of MED-EL’s claim. If AB believes that the lack of expert testimony means that MED-EL cannot meet its burden, then AB can seek relief under Rule 50 at the close of MED-EL’s case at trial.
(We've talked before about the risks of bringing what should be an SJ motion as a MIL.)
In other words, offering no expert testimony could be OK. The accused infringer, however, also failed to ...
Motions in limine can feel like some of the most impactful-feeling motions in the case. Unlike most motions in our busy federal courts, they are typically addressed very quickly, and almost always by the judge handling trial. They are also normally addressed immediately prior to trial. As such, even if the MIL is denied, the issues presented in the MIL may remain at the top of the judge's mind and can influence the direction of the trial (and make subsequent objections easier).
We got an example of that yesterday in Personal Audio, LLC, v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 17-1751-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2023). In that case, Chief Judge Connolly granted a post-trial JMOL …
"Your honor, we move to turn the apple, so that the jury can only see the side that's not rotten."Giuseppe CUZZOCREA, Unsplash
Yesterday, Judge Williams issued an opinion ruling on motions in limine for the trial starting next week in Cirba Inc. (d/b/a DENSIFY) v. VMWare, Inc., C.A. No. 19-742-GBW (D. Del.) (a case we've discussedseveraltimesbefore).
In it, he addressed several MILs. These opinions are always interesting, but given all of the recent discussion of litigation funding, I thought Judge Williams' order on the plaintiff's litigation funding MIL is worth noting.
Plaintiffs in the case moved in limine to preclude reference to their litigation funding arrangements:
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
