Evidence of Pending Reexam Excluded, Along With Presumption of Validity

The court granted plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of nonfinal reexamination proceedings, but precluded plaintiff from arguing a presumption of validity to the jury. "Telling the jury that the patent has been called into question by the patent office may significantly influence the jury’s determination of the issues of infringement and invalidity. . . . To understand the difference between the two proceedings, [plaintiff] would have to offer argument and evidence to the jury on the different evidentiary burden before the patent office as well as the different claim construction used by the examiner and then explain how these differences impacted the reexamination proceeding. Presenting this additional information will waste valuable judicial resources and jury time and would only serve to confuse the jury. . . . However, the court finds that it would be prejudicial to [defendant] to allow argument and instruction on the [patent-in-suit’s] presumption of validity because the 'rationale underlying the presumption of validity is much diminished where the evidence before the factfinder was not before the PTO during the examination process.'"

Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion Corporation, 3-06-cv-00698 (NVD March 31, 2014, Order) (Hicks, J.)