Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

In discussing the application of Seagate to a trial setting, the court notes discomfort in characterizing administrative and court decisions as “objective evidence” for presentation to a jury, since a jury is likely to give such evidence great weight, even when the bases for those decisions are not apparent to the jury.  Thus generally only evidence regarding the prelitigation landscape of the dispute will be admitted.  Proposed evidence must still pass muster under Fed. R. Civ. P. 403.  The parties’ stipulation expanding the trial record to include “the entire record in the above-captioned action” and “[a]ll decisions by this court or by the Federal Circuit” is denied.  The court agrees to summarize the procedural history of this case as set forth in the order.  No statements issued in any re-examination proceedings will be admitted.  The court further provides guidance as to damages.  With respect to royalty rates, consistent with the court’s past practice, royalty rates for litigation settlement agreements will not be admitted. A proffer on the issue of copying will be permitted.