Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01431/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01431-27/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE

HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 03-1431 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket No. 683]

This matter comes before the Court on Frenius' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and

Argument on the Non-Accused 5008 Series Hemodialysis Machine Being Sold Outside of the United

States. Having read and considered the arguments presented by the parties in the papers submitted to

the Court, the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without a hearing. The Court hereby

GRANTS Fresenius' Motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402 and 403

According to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, relevant evidence is defined as "evidence having

any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action

more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Further,

Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that:

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the

Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 748 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.

Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible..

Fed. R. Evid. 402.

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that:

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the

issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of

time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 make clear that "'[u]ndue

prejudice' within [the context of Rule 403] means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper

basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." Fed. R. Evid. 403 Advisory Committee

Notes to 1972 Proposed Rules. "In reaching a decision whether to exclude on grounds of unfair

prejudice, consideration should be given to the probable effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of a

limiting instruction." Id. 

ANALYSIS

In the instant Motion in Limine, Fresenius seeks to exclude any evidence or argument regarding

Fresenius' 5008 series hemodialysis machine (referred to herein as the "5008 machine"). Fresenius

argues that the 5008 machine should be excluded because it is not an accused product or prior art, and

is therefore irrelevant to the parties' claims or defenses. See, e.g., Jumpsport, Inc. v. Hedstrom Corp.,

2004 WL 2203556, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (excluding testimony regarding products that had not been

alleged to infringe in the plaintiff's infringement contentions). Fresenius further argues that the mere

fact that the 5008 has a "touch screen" does not mean that it infringes any of the asserted touch screen

claims, since the claims require – at a minimum – that the touch screen be used for "at least one step in

the process of changing a parameter." Additionally, Fresenius contends that argument regarding the

5008 machine would prejudice Fresenius by suggesting to the jury that other Fresenius products might

also infringe Baxter's patents. Finally, Fresenius notes that this case is already extremely complex, in

that it involves numerous issues, four asserted patents, and many prior art references and machines. As

such, Fresenius argues that testimony regarding the 5008 machine would only serve to further

complicate the case and would unnecessarily confuse the jurors. 

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 748 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

Dr. Rubinfeld has testified that evidence of sales of the 4008H has some relevance to the instant

litigation because it "shows there's no reason in principle to think that customers would necessarily all

want to move to a touch screen device." 

3

In response, Baxter argues that the 5008 machine is relevant to the instant litigation for three

reasons: (1) Fresenius' damages expert relies on evidence of Fresenius' foreign sales of non-touch screen

enabled products in his calculation of a reasonable royalty; (2) evidence of Fresenius' world-wide

adoption of Baxter's patented technology rebuts Fresenius' experts' and fact witnesses' contentions that

touch screen technology is not important to its machine sales; and (3) the sale of the 5008 machine in

foreign markets is a relevant secondary consideration of non-obviousness. Specifically, Baxter contends

that Fresenius' damages expert, Dr. Rubinfeld, has testified that Fresenius' sales of its non-touch screen

4008H series hemodialysis machine (the "4008H machine") is a basis for reducing the amount of the

reasonable royalty to be awarded to Baxter1

 and that Baxter will therefore need to refer to the 5008

machine in order to rebut his testimony. Similarly, Baxter contends that it will need to refer to the 5008

machine is order to rebut the opinion testimony of Fresenius' commercial success expert, Mr. Payne,

who has opined that Fresenius would have been just as successful in selling hemodialysis machines

without a touch screen. Finally, Baxter asserts that Fresenius' success in selling the 5008 machine in

Europe is a relevant factor in showing nonobviousness. 

The most critical factor that Baxter overlooks, however, is that – unless Baxter is willing to

stipulate that all hemodialysis machines containing a touch screen meet the "touch screen" claims – it

would be necessary for Baxter to prove that the 5008 machine does, in fact, include the patented

technology before it can use the 5008 machine to rebut Fresenius' witnesses' testimony. This, however,

would consume a significant amount of time at trial and would undoubtedly further confuse the jurors,

who are already being faced with the unwieldy burden of becoming acquainted with unfamiliar and

difficult technological terms and determining the validity of four different patents and 26 separate patent

claims in little more than a week. Further, Baxter's reliance on Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.

American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1984) is misplaced, as Lindemann does

not stand for the proposition that a party can rely on the commercial success of a completely different

product, that has not been held to infringe, in order to show nonobviousness. Because this case is

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 748 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

already very complex in that it involves several patents and numerous prior art references, the Court

finds that the prejudicial effect and the high likelihood of confusion that will result from introducing the

5008 machine into the litigation far outweighs its extremely limited probative value. Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS Fresenius' Motion in Limine. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Fresenius' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and

Argument on the Non-Accused 5008 Series Hemodialysis Machine Being Sold Outside the United

States [Docket No. 683] is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 6/13/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01431-PJH Document 748 Filed 06/13/06 Page 4 of 4