Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.

Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this 11th day of May, 2018, having reviewed the proposed pretrial order and exhibits to it (D.I. [*2]  715) ("PTO"), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' — Integra LifeSciences Corp., Integra LifeSciences Sales LLC, Confluent Surgical, Inc., and Incept LLC ("Plaintiffs" or "Integra") — motion in limine ("MIL") No. 1, to preclude Defendant HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc. ("Defendant" or "HyperBranch") from offering evidence and argument regarding non-infringement or invalidity defenses not specifically identified previously is DENIED. The only specific concern Plaintiffs raise is with respect to the Jacobs reference, but the Court has already held that Defendant will be permitted to present evidence and argument related to Jacobs. (See D.I. 601) (denying Integra's motion to strike (D.I. 510); see also D.I. 714) The Court and the parties agree to the general principle that neither side will be permitted to present at trial evidence or argument that has not been timely and properly disclosed. To the extent either side believes the other is violating this principle (no such violation is identified in Plaintiffs' MIL No. 1), it may seek appropriate relief from the Court at trial.

2. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 2, to exclude evidence and argument inconsistent with the Court's claim construction, [*3]  will be discussed at the pretrial conference ("PTC"), to be held on May 15, 2018. In part, Plaintiffs' MIL No. 2 overlaps with issues also pending before the Court in connection with: (i) Defendants' objections (D.I. 698) to the grant (D.I. 672) of Plaintiffs' motion (D.I. 396) to exclude certain opinion testimony and evidence, and (ii) Defendant's MIL No. 1, all of which the parties shall also be prepared to discuss at the PTC. The Court and the parties agree to the general principle that neither side will be permitted to present at trial evidence or argument that is inconsistent with the Court's claim construction.¹

3. Plaintiffs' MIL No. 3, to exclude evidence and arguments relating to the Court's pre-trial rulings, is GRANTED. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that informing the jury of what the Court has ruled prior to trial (other than providing the jury the Court's claim constructions, but not the Court's claim construction opinion or reasoning) would be unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and waste time (given the context that would need to be given to the jury). See generally Nipper v. Snipes, 7 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1993) (warning of danger of jury giving undue weight to findings made by judge). The limited, if any, probative [*4]  value of informing the jury of the Court's rulings on disputes the parties have previously presented is substantially outweighed by these concerns. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Court's decision does not preclude either side from cross-examining a witness based on her prior inconsistent statement(s). Nor does the Court's decision today unfairly prejudice Defendant, as the Court will not be permitting any expert to testify in a manner inconsistent with the Court's claim construction (rendering it unnecessary to attempt to persuade the jury that an opinion the Court will permit the jury to hear is somehow inconsistent with the Court's claim construction). The Court's ruling extends to all evidence relating to the PTAB and the IPR, including the PTAB's claim construction, its impact on the Court's claim construction, and the outcome of the IPR. Although relevant (for example, to Defendant's defense to willful infringement), the prejudice and confusion inherent in presenting this evidence to the jury — particularly given the PTAB's different standards — substantially outweighs its probative value. See id.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.