Pretrial motions are decided in golf ball case
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, Civ. No.06-091-SLR, March 3, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment on anticipation is denied. Defendant’s Daubert motion is denied. Plaintiff’s motions in limine are granted, and defendants’ motions in limine are denied in part and granted in part. The court denies the motion to disqualify the damages expert Brian Napper. He is qualified and need only show with a reasonable probability that sales for which lost profits are sought would have been made.
This matter was remanded for re-trial on the issues of obviousness and anticipation. The Federal Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment of no anticipation and vacated the nonobviousness judgment as based upon irreconcilably inconsistent jury awards. The court declines to enter summary judgment on anticipation noting the high burden of clear and convincing evidence in order to prevail. The court concludes that attorney argument and testing that has not been fully vetted through the discovery process is insufficient. With respect to defendant’s in limine motions, no reference to the fact that three examiners considered the patents and no reference to re-examination proceedings are allowed.
