Magnitude of Nexus Goes to Weight, Not Admissibility, of Copying Evidence

The court overruled defendants' objection to the magistrate judge's ruling allowing evidence of copying and rejected their argument that the magistrate judge failed to consider the magnitude of the nexus between the alleged copying and the patented features. "The Magistrate Judge correctly held that 'secondary considerations of non-obviousness serve as an important check on hindsight bias and ‘must always when present be considered.’'. . . [T]he Magistrate Judge correctly admitted evidence of copying for which [plaintiff] had shown a prima facie nexus, e.g., via an expert opinion that the copied product practices one or more asserted claims." The court rejected defendant's argument that "'[t]o be relevant, the alleged copying must be of the patented feature of that product and not, for example, some unpatented feature.' The magnitude of the nexus between the alleged copying and the patented features determines whether evidence of copying should be 'given significant weight.'"

Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp. et al, 2-14-cv-00033 (TXED February 2, 2016, Order) (Gilstrap, J.)