Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05038/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05038-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

Case No.13-cv-05038 NC 

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

ENPLAS DISPLAY DEVICE 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR 

COMPANY, LTD.,

Defendant.

Case No.13-cv-05038 NC 

ORDER REGARDING DROPPED 

CLAIMS AND THEORIES

The parties submitted additional briefing to the Court with dueling stipulations as to 

how the Court and the parties should handle dropped claims and theories at trial. Dkt. No. 

386. The Court does not find that a hearing is necessary. 

The Court finds the following procedure is appropriate:

1. The parties agree that SSC does not assert that EDD directly infringes the 

patents-in-suit. The Court has clarified the parties’ statement of the case in the 

preliminary jury instructions to reflect that EDD is accused of actively inducing 

infringement. The Court concludes that it is not relevant for SSC to present 

evidence that EDD directly infringes the patents, and such references will be 

excluded. The Court requests that the parties refer to EDD’s liability as for

“induced infringement” rather than “infringement,” as the term infringement 

could be easily construed as direct infringement.

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 388 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 13-cv-05038 NC 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

2. The jury will be instructed that EDD’s defense for invalidity of the ’209 patent 

over the prior art is limited to obviousness. 

3. Because the anticipation argument on the ’209 patent is not relevant, the Court 

excludes reference to or evidence of the anticipation argument.

4. The parties may not refer to any court orders or procedural history regarding 

claims and products not in the case, or the reasons why they may not be at issue.

5. The jury will be given the following jury instruction in the preliminary 

instructions, the closing instructions, and at any other time that the Court 

believes is necessary: “Although the parties may refer to other claims or lenses, 

you will only be asked to decide on infringement and/or invalidity of the claims 

and lenses listed in the jury instructions.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05038-NC Document 388 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2