The court denied defendants' motion to bifurcate the trial on liability from damages and willfulness. "Defendants argue that bifurcation is necessary to ensure jury comprehension. The inherent complexity of patent cases, the argument goes, imposes an 'extraordinary burden' on the jury; bifurcation is necessary to break up the case into digestible pieces. That argument is most persuasive where the action involves an esoteric technology. Its persuasive force is much diminished in a case, such as this, where the technology at issue is something as low-tech as ladies' undergarments."
Plew v. Limited Brands, Inc., et. al., 1-08-cv-03741 (NYSD February 6, 2012, Order) (Swain, J.)