Cause of action for inequitable conduct was not established for trial
Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, et al., Civ. No. 06-557a-SLR, September 13, 2011.
Robinson, J. Cross motions in limine to exclude certain characterizations of the patent-in suit made in satellite patent prosecutions are granted. The court resolves other pretrial issues and denies Plaintiff’s motions for reargument
On September 8, 2011, a pretrial conference was held in this case concerning a patented process relating to non-ozone depleting hydrofluorocarbons. After addressing cross motions in limine, certain characterizations regarding statements made in satellite patent prosecution is excluded as unfairly prejudicial, misleading, and confusing. The priority date was conceded and the issue will not be reopened. A dependent claim never explicitly discussed in the expert report will not be presented to jury. Defendant’s motion for leave to supplement expert reports concerning a late disclosed, but critical, document is granted with both sides permitted to supplement. Defendant’s motions for reargument on the issue of abandonment, suppression, or concealment are denied. After reviewing defendant’s statement of intended proof the court concludes that defendant failed to meet its threshold burden set forth in Therasense to establish a cause of action for inequitable conduct because the evidence proffered does not establish the requisite level of intent. The issue will not be tried. A bench trial on equitable estoppel will follow the scheduled trial.
