Defense tactics result in denial of JMOL and new trial motions
Praxair, Inc. et al. v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, Aug. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions for JMOL and new trial are denied.
The patents-in-suit relate to apparatus used to control the discharge of pressurized fluids from the outlet of pressurized tanks. On December 7, 2005 a jury found the patents valid and infringed. Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Karvelis provided sufficient evidence that the accused products contained infringing capillary passages. Praxair presented substantial evidence that the filters of the accused product were flow restrictors. ATMI did not make a prima facie case of reverse doctrine of equivalents, providing no evidence that the accused filters are “sufficiently different from that which is patented.” With respect to invalidity, ATMI claimed that Praxair did not rebut the testimony of ATMI’s expert Dr. Glew, who reasoned that if ATMI infringes, a prior art reference anticipates. The Court found the expert’s statements conclusory and presumed the jury found them unpersuasive. A new trial was not warranted because the alleged prejudice stemmed from evidence excluded due to ATMI’s “trial by ambush” tactics. ATMI’s new trial counsel waited until the last day of an extended discovery period to identify 50 new prior art references, which references were excluded. The Court properly excluded Dr. Glew’s supplemental expert report filed only 10 days before dispositive motions were due. The exclusion of a third party witness not identified during fact discovery as having relevant information was proper. The Court rejected defendants’ claim construction arguments. A jury instruction to presume data supplied by ATMI was accurate was proper because ATMI waited until cross-examination to challenge that data for the first time, leaving no opportunity for rehabilitation of Praxair’s witness.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
