Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
Where the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence that the defendant has patents on the accused product, its motion in limine was denied. Although holding patents on the accused product is not a defense to infringement, as the jury will be instructed, the evidence was relevant to the claims about whether the defendant has a corporate culture that encourages infringement.
Background
This memorandum opinion and order summarizes the court’s holdings on the motions in limine argued at the pretrial conference on June 15, 2022.
Crown’s motion
The first part of plaintiff Crown Packaging Technology Inc.’s motion in limine, to exclude evidence that defendant Belvac Production Machinery Inc. has patents on the accused product, is denied. Although it is true that Belvac holding patents on the accused product is not a defense to infringement, the court holds that Belvac holding patents on the accused product is relevant to the claims that the parties will likely make at trial about whether Belvac does or does not have a corporate culture that encourages infringement. The court will issue a jury instruction noting that Belvac holding patents on the accused product is not a defense to infringement, which will cure any prejudice to Crown that this evidence creates.
The second part of Crown’s motion in limine, to exclude evidence relating to Alphonse Stroobants, his descendants or his foundations, is granted for the reasons stated on the record at the final pretrial conference.
Belvac’s motions
Belvac’s first motion in limine, to exclude evidence relating to the 131 publication and 843 patent, is denied. Crown must show at trial that Belvac had knowledge of the asserted patents, so, to the extent that Belvac’s knowledge of the 131 publication also tends to show its knowledge of the asserted patents, Belvac’s knowledge of the 131 publication is relevant and thus admissible evidence. The court does not find that the prejudice to Belvac of admitting this evidence is so high that exclusion under Rule 403 is warranted.
Belvac’s second motion in limine, relating to prior litigation between the parties, is granted for the reasons stated on the record at the pretrial conference. Belvac’s third motion in limine, relating to Dover Corporation’s ownership of Belvac, is granted for the reasons stated at the pretrial conference.
Belvac’s fourth motion in limine, relating to the overall revenues and financial health of Belvac and Dover Corporation, is granted with respect to Dover’s revenues financial status and denied with respect to Belvac’s. Evidence about Belvac’s and Dover’s financial status is not relevant to damages, which, if awarded, will be based on the extent the infringement harmed Crown, not on Belvac’s or Dover’s overall revenues.
But the court holds that Belvac’s revenues at the time of the alleged infringement are relevant to and admissible for the limited purpose of explaining Crown’s theory that Belvac infringed Crown’s patent because Belvac’s revenues were suffering due to Crown’s market presence. The court will hear individual objections to this evidence at trial but holds for now that Crown is not categorically prohibited from introducing evidence of Belvac’s revenues and financial status.
Belvac’s fifth motion in limine, relating to an alleged design flaw in the accused product’s prototype, is granted for the reasons stated at the pretrial conference. Belvac’s sixth motion in limine, relating to the presumption of validity, is denied for the reasons stated at the pretrial conference.
Belvac’s seventh motion in limine, relating to the patent drawings, is denied. The court holds that the patent drawings are relevant and admissible for the purpose of explaining the shape of the die surface (i.e., whether it is tapered). Crown and its experts may not represent that the patent drawings represent “precise dimensions,” but the court understands that Crown and its experts do not intend to do so.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine granted in part, denied in part. Defendant’s motions in limine granted in part, denied in part.
Crown Packaging Technology Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-70, June 23, 2022. WDVA at Lynchburg (Moon). VLW 022-3-260. 3 pp.
