Damages and willfulness are bifurcated; summary judgment is denied
Laboratory Skin Care, Inc. and Zahra Mansouri v. Limited Brands, Inc. and Bath And Body Works, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-601-LPS, December 6, 2010.
Stark, J. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment under § 102(b) is denied. Remaining portions of defendants’ invalidity motion are denied. Defendants’ motion to bifurcate liability from damages and willfulness is granted.
The disputed technology pertains to formulations for skin cleansers and moisturizers. Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply is denied as moot since the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The parties agree that plaintiff sold a moisturizer product more than one year before the critical date. However, the offer must be for the patented invention, and defendants have failed to show there are no material facts in dispute. Defendants also fail to show there are no disputed facts with respect to enablement. Following briefing on anticipation plaintiff sought to preclude defendants from relying on documents identified for the first time in their reply brief. The Court found that defendants violated D.Del. L. R. 7.1.3(c)(2). Although defendants did not receive certain document in time to include with the opening brief, it was their responsibility to obtain the discovery in time. Defendant effectively reserved material by not diligently pursuing it. As for summary judgment, although defendants provide evidence supporting anticipation, it is not conclusive. Defendants ask the court to bifurcate damages and willfulness from liability, and plaintiff opposes that request. The court finds that the burden on the jury and judicial resources is lessened by bifurcating, notwithstanding the fact that this case has been pending four years.
