Invalidity summary judgment motions denied; patent law experts precluded
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Summary judgment motions based upon invalidity and inequitable conduct are denied. Patent law expert testimony is precluded. Testimony of liability expert will be permitted except expert will not be permitted to opine inconsistently with the court’s claim construction.
The patent-in-suit relates to cleaning compositions with orange oil. The court construed the orange oil limitation narrowly to require at least 5% by volume of the non-water soluble liquid derived from an orange. As a result, the contested prior art does not anticipate. The court rejects obviousness arguments because the record with respect to cleaning agents is neither clear nor convincing. Defendants’ motion that the patent lacks sufficient written description and is nonenabling was rejected based upon the court’s narrow claim construction. Issues of material fact preclude summary judgment of inequitable conduct. Both sides offered patent law experts (Michael Davis and Larry Evans) and both moved to preclude the other’s expert. Both motions to preclude these experts were granted. Liability expert Christopher Rhodes was permitted to testify consistent with the court’s claim construction. The damages expert was permitted to testify over argument that he had not appropriately considered the Georgia-Pacific factors.
