Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02864/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02864-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNSTECH INTERNATIONAL CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JF MICROTECHNOLOGY SDN BHD,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02864-JD 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

As discussed at the pretrial conference on September 8, 2016, a jury trial of this matter is 

set for September 19, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. and will be conducted under these procedures and rulings:

I. GENERAL PROCEDURES

1. The trial will be held the week of September 19, 2016, Monday through Thursday. 

Friday will be a dark day, but the Court has re-arranged its schedule so that the jury 

may deliberate on Friday, September 23, 2016, if necessary. 

2. Trial will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. each trial day, with two 15-minute 

breaks. Counsel should be in the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. on each trial 

day in case the Court needs to hear evidence issues or other matters outside the 

presence of the jury. 

3. Each side will have 7.5 hours for all witness examinations, including crossexaminations. Each side will have an additional 30 minutes for opening 

statements, and 45 minutes for closing arguments. 

4. Written motions may not be filed during trial without the Court’s prior approval. If 

a party believes a written motion is necessary, it must first discuss it with the Court. 

5. The Court defers the parties’ dispute about indefiniteness until after the jury

verdict. It may consider the issue then, if warranted. 

Case 3:14-cv-02864-JD Document 206 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1. Johnstech’s MIL No. 1: GRANTED. FRE 402/403.

2. JFM’s MIL No. 1: DENIED. Johnstech’s initial disclosures are distinguishable 

from those in Vinotemp Int’l Corp. v. Wine Master Cellars, No. CV 11-1543, 2013 

WL 5366406 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013). Although Johnstech should have 

supplemented those disclosures, any FRCP 26(a) violation was ultimately harmless 

for the reasons stated on the record. 

3. JFM’s MIL No. 2: GRANTED. Johnstech has disclaimed reasonable royalties. 

4. JFM’s MIL No. 3: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Evidence 

of copying may not be offered to prove infringement, but it may be offered for 

other purposes, including non-obviousness and willfulness. Allen Eng’g Corp. v. 

Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. 

USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Stryker Corp. v. 

Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 96 F.3d 1409, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

5. JFM’s MIL No. 4: GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Johnstech 

is generally precluded from pursuing equivalence theories not disclosed in its 

infringement contentions. The equivalence theory in Dr. Brown’s report is not 

precluded. The Court has already found that Johnstech sufficiently disclosed its 

doctrine of equivalents theory. Dkt. No. 177 (SJ order) at 7-9. Johnstech may also 

offer evidence of known interchangeability, which is relevant evidence and not a 

new “theory” that needed separate disclosure. IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, 

Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

6. JFM’s MIL No. 5: PRELIMINARILY GRANTED. Johnstech states that the 5 

paragraphs at issue in its expert report were included for rebuttal purposes only, 

and the Court limits their use at trial to that purpose. To the extent Johnstech 

argues that the opinions in those 5 paragraphs overlap with other opinions that were 

properly disclosed and should therefore be admitted for other, non-rebuttal 

purposes, the Court defers ruling pending the evidence at trial. 

Case 3:14-cv-02864-JD Document 206 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

7. JFM’s MIL No. 7: DENIED. This evidence is relevant to non-obviousness, and 

JFM’s motion in limine goes mainly to the weight of Johnstech’s evidence rather 

than admissibility. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. 

Cir. 1983); Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc., 690 F.3d 1354, 1378 

(Fed. Cir. 2012).

8. JFM’s MIL No. 8: DENIED. Johnstech disclosed that the ROL products practice 

or embody the patent in suit, and it need not have performed a claim-by-claim 

analysis. The evidence is among the factors relevant to non-obviousness. 

Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

III. JURY INSTRUCTIONS / VOIR DIRE / VERDICT FORM

1. Jury Instructions. The Court will post by September 12, 2016 the proposed initial

instructions it intends to give to the jury before opening statements. Any objections 

are due by September 14, 2016, at 12:00 pm.

2. Disputed Instructions. The parties agreed to all of the joint proposed jury 

instructions, except for these disputes. The Court will use the instructions as 

agreed to by parties and resolves the disputes as follows.

a. Disputed Proposed Jury Instruction #18: The additional language that 

JFM wants added from the claim construction order (for structural and 

functional construction) will not be included for the reasons that 

Johnstech’s MIL #1 was granted. 

b. Disputed Proposed Jury Instruction #21: The additional language that 

JFM wants added from the claim construction order will not be included for 

the same reasons. The language about the person of ordinary skill is 

redundant of other instructions and need not be repeated here. The 

language about the disclosed structures is also redundant and potentially 

confusing in this context. The Element “29” typo will be corrected. 

Case 3:14-cv-02864-JD Document 206 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

c. Disputed Proposed Jury Instruction #22: The “known 

interchangeability” language is appropriate in this case for the reasons that 

JFM’s motion in limine #4 was denied in part. 

d. Disputed Proposed Jury Instruction #24: JFM’s proposed language is 

denied. Under current case law, the jury need not find that JFM acted “in 

bad faith, wantonly, maliciously” and so on to find willful misconduct. See

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923 (2016); 

Innovation Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2014-1731,

2016 WL 4151240 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2016). The Court will consider the 

egregiousness of the conduct for enhancement of damages following the 

jury verdict, if warranted. 

e. Disputed Proposed Jury Instruction #25: The word “alleged” is 

argumentative and unnecessary, and will not be used before the term “prior 

art.”

f. Disputed Proposed Jury Instruction #28: On further consideration, the 

Court will not give this instruction because it duplicates parts of the 

instructions for anticipation and obviousness. 

3. Voir Dire & Jury Selection. The Court uses the “strike and replace” method for 

jury selection as explained at the conference. Eight jurors will be seated as the 

jury. The Court will conduct the voir dire based on its own questions and questions 

proposed by the parties. Each side will have three peremptory challenges in total

and challenges for cause. A prospective juror not excused after a round of 

challenges will be deemed a member of the jury and may not be subsequently 

challenged. The Court will post the proposed voir dire questions by September 12, 

2016. Any objections are due by September 14, 2016, at 12:00 pm. 

4. Verdict form. The Court will post the proposed verdict form by September 15, 

2016. Any objections are due by September 20, 2016, at 12:00 pm.

Case 3:14-cv-02864-JD Document 206 Filed 09/09/16 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. JURY MATERIALS

1. FJC video. The Court will show the jury the Federal Judicial Center’s video, “The 

Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors,” available at 

http://youtu.be/ax7QHQTbKQE. The Court will provide a DVD with a copy of the 

video. The parties will be responsible for playing the DVD for the jury on 

September 19, 2016, and providing the jurors with 8 paper copies of the sample 

patent that accompanies the video, which is available at http://www.fjc.gov/public/ 

pdf.nsf/lookup/PatentSystemSample2.pdf/$file/PatentSystemSample2.pdf. 

2. Statement of the case. The parties must submit by September 14, 2016, at 12:00 

pm a joint proposed statement of the case that the Court will read to the venire 

panel on September 19, 2016. The statement should not exceed 1-2 short 

paragraphs. 

3. Jury questions. The Court will allow the jurors to ask questions during the trial. 

Questions will be in writing and submitted to the Court. Before the witness is 

excused, the Court will share the proposed question with the parties in a sidebar 

and, if warranted, will pose the question to the witness.

4. Jury notebooks. Jurors will be permitted to take notes. The parties will prepare 

jury notebooks and lodge 12 copies -- eight for the jurors and four for the Court --

on September 19, 2016. The notebooks should be in the form of 1” 3-ring binders 

that have a plastic cover sleeve with a caption page (stating the case name and 

number), and must include these materials:

a. A stipulated glossary of terms.

b. A copy of the ’866 patent. 

c. A chart, with one claim per page, containing the asserted claims with the 

construed terms highlighted in the left column, and the Court’s 

constructions of the highlighted terms in the right column. 

d. A tab for witness photos. The jury will be provided with a photo (a 

headshot) of each witness just before that witness takes the stand. The party 

Case 3:14-cv-02864-JD Document 206 Filed 09/09/16 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

calling the witness is responsible for providing the Courtroom Deputy with 

12 three-hole punched, letter-sized copies of each photo. The Courtroom 

Deputy will distribute the photos. The witness must appear exactly the 

same in the photo as he or she will appear on the witness stand (e.g., same 

clothing, hairstyle, eyewear).

e. A tab for the Initial and Final Jury Instructions.

f. 30 pages of blank lined paper for notes.

V. WITNESSES

1. Each party must have its witnesses for the trial day available in the courthouse and 

ready to testify. Failure to have the next witness ready or to be prepared to proceed 

with the evidence will usually constitute resting.

2. Witnesses in the courtroom. During the pretrial conference, the parties jointly 

waived exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom under FRE 615. At the parties’

joint request, witnesses may be present in the courtroom before taking the stand,

but the parties are advised not to refer to prior testimony during witness 

examinations in a way that would confuse the jury or waste time, or as a device for 

merely repeating the prior testimony for emphasis.

3. Witness Disclosure. A party must disclose the identity of the witnesses it plans to 

call -- as well as the exhibits to be used during the direct examination of any 

witness -- by 4 p.m. two calendar days before calling the witness to the stand. Any 

party that has an objection must alert the Court as soon as possible, but no later 

than the end of the day before any witness is to be called, and the Court will take up 

the objection outside the presence of the jury.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02864-JD Document 206 Filed 09/09/16 Page 6 of 6