Defendant was permitted to argue that features other than those allegedly covered by the asserted patent drove commercial success of the accused products, but was not permitted to offer evidence that such additional features were separately patented. "The Court will exclude evidence of [defendant's] patents to rebut Plaintiffs’ expected argument that the [patent-in-suit] drove the commercial success of the [accused product]. [Defendant] may argue that its own 'later and greater' specific features drove the commercial success of the [product], but [defendant] cannot use the terms 'patents' or 'patented' in discussing the features. Use of the term 'patent,' in this context, is irrelevant, prejudicial, and will cause jury confusion."
Hochstein et al v. Microsoft Corporation et al., 2-04-cv-73071
(MIED July 7, 2009, Opinion & Order) (Borman, J.)