Court declines to bifurcate inequitable conduct
Webexchange Inc. v. Fedex Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 08-133-JJF, December 30, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion to bifurcate and for early trial on inequitable conduct is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file surreply is granted.
The patents-in-suit relate to methods and systems for enabling transactions on the internet. Defendants contend that the evidence of inequitable conduct by the named inventor Lakshmi Arunachalam is so compelling that that it will be case dispositive and prevent the need for further litigation. It would further put a stop to ongoing conduct alleged to be fraudulent and mitigate harm to the public interest. Plaintiff responds that the inequitable conduct defense does not implicate the ‘556 patent and that bifurcation would not eliminate the need for discovery and trial on infringement and validity, and that further delay would be prejudicial. The Court notes that the defendants have a high burden of clear and convincing evidence to prove inequitable conduct. There is a likelihood of duplication of proof common to the inequitable conduct and invalidity cases, such as on prior art, background testimony, and expert testimony, such that bifurcating the trial on the issue of inequitable conduct will not promote judicial economy. The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to file a motion to file a surreply which motion was unopposed as long as Defendants were permitted an opportunity to reply.
