In another ruling from the In Re ChanBond litigation as it approaches trial, Judge Andrews today issued an in-depth opinion granting a motion in limine to exclude reference to prior expert testimony from a related IPR proceeding, on the grounds that the testimony is hearsay.

Plaintiff sought to admit the material as former testimony under FRE 804(b)(1), because it is helpful to its infringement case. The rule requires, however, that the former testimony was offered against the parties' predecessor who had "an opportunity and similar motive to develop it."

Here, Judge Andrews found that an IPR petitioner's motive in developing expert testimony to show invalidity is different from a defendant's motive developing its non-infringement position:

I …

In In Re Chanbond, LLC Patent Litigation, Judge Andrews denied a request for post-pretrial-order discovery on Friday. The request came after Defendants received an e-mail from attorneys from third-party Deirdre Leane alleging that her consent was required for any settlement between the defendants and plaintiff ChanBond:

On September 2, 2020, Defendants received an email from Ms. Leane’s counsel, informing them of a dispute between Ms. Leane and ChanBond. . . . The email stated, “As we read Section 8.3 of the ISA, Ms. Leane’s written consent is required given that a license is a transfer of an interest in the patents-in-suit, which in turn are material assets of ChanBond.” . . . The email warned, “[P]lease take notice …

Motions in limine can be kind of exciting. The motions and the rulings are typically short, and they are ordinarily filed with the pretrial order just before trial. Unlike most motions, the Court usually rules on them quickly (between the PTO and the trial), sometimes live at the pretrial conference, and the impact is felt almost immediately.

Plus, orders that result from MILs can sometimes have a huge effect on the practical course of the trial by precluding important arguments and evidence, or even by interfering with your trial themes—frequently at the last minute. So it's worth keeping in mind the kinds of things that may come up at the MIL stage.

Last week, Judge Andrews …

As the court moves closer and closer to resuming normal operations, Judge Noreika has released a new order describing the procedures for her first COVID-19 bench trial with live attorneys (although still remote witnesses).

TriMed, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., C.A. No 18-666-MN, was originally slated for a jury trial on September 14, 2020, but was converted to a bench trial on the same dates following a teleconference on July 30.

Other than the lack of in-person witnesses, the trial appears to be remarkably similar to a bench trial in the before-times, with the only major concessions to the pandemic being required masks, the use of electronic witness …

The trial in Xcoal Energy & Resources v. Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., C.A No. 18-819-LPS (D. Del.) was adjourned this morning following receipt by the parties of an "anonymous letter." The trial had started yesterday, after the Court previously overruled Xcoal's due process objections to a remote trial.

All of the discussion of the letter was at sidebar, so its contents are not yet public. But it must be something interesting!

The parties had asked for a sidebar immediately after opening statements yesterday. Counsel mentioned that the situation is like "something out of a John Grisham novel."

At the sidebar, they read the "anonymous letter" into the record, and both parties …