Use of evidence in violation of trial practice guidelines warranted new trial
Belden Technologies Inc., et al. v. Superior Essex Communications LP, et al., Civ. No. 08-63-SLR, August 12, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL or for a new trial on validity is granted in part and denied in part and its motion for permanent injunction is denied. Defendants’ renewed motion for JMOL or for new trial on invalidity is also granted in part and denied in part. The parties’ remaining JMOL motions are denied as moot.
This is a patent case involving several patents directed to high performance data cables and methods of making such cables. Infringement issues were resolved before trial. A trial on the remaining validity issues was held September 7-15, 2010. The jury returned a verdict finding some asserted claims valid and others invalid. Before the court are plaintiffs’ renewed motion for JMOL of no anticipation and no obviousness or for a new trial; defendants’ renewed motions for JMOL of anticipation, for amendment of the judgment, or for a new trial; and plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction. A new invalidity trial at defendants’ expense was granted in accordance with the court’s trial practice guidelines. Defendants violated those guidelines by presenting an obviousness defense over plaintiffs’ objection that was not previously vetted during discovery. Defendants’ regarding invalidity of a claim due to obviousness is granted; defendants’ other motions were denied. Plaintiffs were not entitled to a permanent injunction because they failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and inadequacy of damages and the harm to defendants outweighed the harm to plaintiffs.
