The court allowed plaintiff to present to the jury "a 17-minute video defining a patent and explaining frequent causes of patent litigation that was created by the Federal Judicial Center created 7 years before the alleged infringement in this suit." However, the court also ordered that a statement be read to the jury that "Defendants have other, non-patent-based counterclaims that the video does not address." "Defendants’ argument that the video should be excluded as a discovery sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to disclose this video in discovery or submit the FJC as an expert fails because Defendant cites no case where admission of the FJC’s video is improper. Defendant does not challenge the FJC video as containing inaccurate information."
Spellbound Development Group Inc. v. Pacific Handy Cutter Inc., et. al., 8-09-cv-00951 (CACD February 24, 2012, Order) (Carter, J.)