Evidence of Defendant’s Intent to Discontinue Sales of Accused Product Excluded as Irrelevant to Reasonable Royalty Analysis

The court reconsidered its ruling made before opening statements and found that defendants were not permitted to present evidence that they no longer planned to commercialize the accused soybean seeds. "The issue was whether Defendants’ current lack of intent to commercialize [the accused seeds] is relevant to [plaintiff's] request for infringement damages. . . . The Federal Circuit has clearly stated that the applicable time frame for the hypothetical negotiation is the time of infringement. Therefore, Defendants’ present intentions concerning commercialization of [their] soybeans are irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Moreover, the Court finds that any remote probative value of this evidence is greatly outweighed by the danger of confusing the jury. . . . The Court, however, will allow Defendants to present evidence that to date, no sale of [that] seed has occurred."

Monsanto Company, et. al. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, et. al., 4-09-cv-00686 (MOED July 11, 2012, Order) (Webber, J.).