Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572-7/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

1 06cv1572

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENS ERIK SORENSEN, as Trustee of

SORENSEN RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT TRUST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1572 BTM (CAB)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF LACHES [Doc.

#55];

(2) SETTING BENCH TRIAL AND

PRETRIAL SCHEDULE ON

DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS OF

LACHES AND EQUITABLE

ESTOPPEL;

and

(3) SETTING CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION HEARING

vs.

THE BLACK AND DECKER

CORPORATION, et al.

Defendants.

I. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Laches

On June 13, 2007, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment of laches. For the reasons set forth on the record, the motion is DENIED. As was

explained, material issues of fact remain in dispute including, but not limited to: (1) whether

Defendants suffered economic prejudice that is related to any delay by Plaintiff in filing suit,

as it is not clear that Black & Decker’s DeWalt product line expansion had not been

conceived and launched prior to the receipt of Plaintiff’s initial letter alleging infringement; (2)

whether Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of Defendants’ continued production of

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 147 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2 06cv1572

allegedly infringing products, as there is conflicting evidence regarding the ease with which

one could determine whether any particular product employs an infringing process in its

manufacturing; (3) whether Black & Decker made misrepresentations, via Dennis Dearing

in a 1995 meeting, regarding any other products similar to the allegedly infringing DW962

and Black & Decker’s intention to phase-out production of that one model; and (4) whether

the laches period should relate back to the mid-1990s for much of Black & Decker’s current

line of accused products, as it is unclear whether these products employ a materially different

manufacturing process from the one previously discussed with the ‘184 patent holder. These

and other disputed material issues of fact preclude the granting of summary judgment at this

point.

II. Bench Trial on Laches and Equitable Estoppel Defenses

Since material facts remain in dispute with respect to Defendants’ defense of laches,

the Court will proceed to a trial on this issue. As the parties agreed during the June 13

hearing, laches and Defendants’ other asserted defense of estoppel are equitable defenses

and, therefore, they are tried to the Court, not a jury. In addition, they can be bifurcated from

the rest of the trial proceedings relating to infringement. Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d

942, 961-63 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(b), 42(b). Accordingly, a bench trial

will occur on Defendants’ equitable defenses, and no other issues, beginning December 17,

2007 at 9:00am. The parties are directed not to limit their presentations at the trial to only

those issues of material fact identified above as remaining in dispute.

For the purposes of that trial only, the Court will assume infringement on the part of

Defendants. See Danjaq, 263 F.3d at 962. However, in deciding these equitable defenses,

the Court will need to determine whether there has been any showing of willful infringement

on the part of Defendants that would act as a “counterdefense” to laches. Id. If any party

feels that the Court’s determination of the willfulness issue presents a problem for any jury

trial proceedings that would take place subsequently, they may make an appropriate motion

to the Court to reconsider the decision to bifurcate the equitable portion of the trial within 30

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 147 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 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

3 06cv1572

days of entry of this order. If no such motion is received, the Court will consider the issue

waived for all purposes going forward.

A pretrial conference will be held on November 26, 2007 at 2:00pm. Except to the

extent specified herein, the parties are directed to comply with the rules for pretrial

proceedings set out in Local Civil Rule 16.1(f), including filing of memoranda of contentions

of fact and law. The parties are directed to submit a joint proposed pretrial order seven (7)

days in advance of the pretrial conference, by November 19, 2007, rather than five days in

advance as specified in CivLR 16.1(f)(6)(b). In addition, the pretrial order need not take the

form specified in CivLR 16.1(f)(6)(c). Rather, it should include the following:

1. A statement, not in excess of one page, of the nature of the case and the

claims and defenses.

2. A list of the equitable defenses to be tried, referenced to the allegations in the

Complaint to which they pertain. For each defense, the order shall succinctly list the

elements of the defense. If Defendants choose not to proceed upon the equitable estoppel

defense, that defense will be waived going forward.

3(a). A list of each witness that counsel actually expects to call at trial with a brief

statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the witnesses' testimony.

3(b). A list of each expert witness that counsel actually expects to call at trial with a

brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the expert witnesses'

testimony.

3(c). A list of additional witnesses including experts that counsel do not expect to call

at this time but reserve the right to call at trial along with a brief statement, not exceeding four

sentences, of the substance of the witnesses' testimony.

4(a). A list of all exhibits that counsel actually expect to offer at trial with a

one-sentence description of the exhibit.

4(b). A list of all other exhibits that counsel do not expect to offer at this time but

reserve the right to offer if necessary at trial with a one-sentence description of the exhibit.

5. A statement of all facts to which the parties stipulate. The parties are directed

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 147 Filed 06/20/07 Page 3 of 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

4 06cv1572

to meet with the assigned magistrate judge to work out as many stipulations of fact as

possible.

6. A list of all deposition transcripts by page and line, or videotape depositions by

section, that will be offered at trial. The proponent of the deposition shall prepare a copy of

all portions to be read or played to the Court.

The Court encourages the parties to consult with the assigned magistrate judge to

work out any problems in preparation of the proposed pretrial order.

III. Claim Construction Hearing

Plaintiff has argued that construing the claims of the ‘184 patent in advance of the

bench trial will be beneficial to the Court in deciding upon Defendants’ equitable defenses.

As Defendants have not objected to this procedure, the Court hereby sets the claim

construction hearing in this matter for October 31, 2007 at 9:00am. As will be set forth more

fully in a forthcoming order from Magistrate Judge Bencivengo, the hearing, and associated

claim construction proceedings, will be handled jointly with the parties to Sorensen v. Tecnica

USA Corp. (06cv1941) because the ‘184 patent is at issue in both matters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 147 Filed 06/20/07 Page 4 of 4