Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03393/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03393-73/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANGIOSCORE, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRIREME MEDICAL, INC., ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 12-cv-03393-YGR 

TRIAL ORDER NO. 2 (PATENT CLAIMS) RE:

OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY DESIGNATIONS 

AND EXHIBITS

Outside the presence of the jury at today’s trial session, the Court took under submission 

the following objections, with references to Docket Number 719 line numbers indicating the 

specifics of the objections: 

1. By defendants: 

a. Defendants objected to plaintiff’s counter-designations to the Tom Trotter 

deposition designations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 106, where 

said counter-designations cite to the transcript of the earlier trial in this 

case. The objections that the counter-designations are not necessary for 

fairness or completeness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a) or 

Federal Rule of Evidence 106 are SUSTAINED. 

b. Defendants’ objections to counter-designations to the Trotter deposition 

designations, reflected at Line Numbers 1036-37, that the counterdesignations are not necessary for fairness or completeness, are 

OVERRULED. 

2. By plaintiff: 

a. Plaintiff’s objections reflected at Line Numbers 1076-81, regarding the 

Trotter deposition and references to hearsay statements of Martin Leon, are 

SUSTAINED. 

b. Plaintiff’s Rules 402 and 403 and hearsay objections to Trial Exhibits 5770 

Case 4:12-cv-03393-YGR Document 764 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Californi

a

(patent prosecution history file), 5725 (patent application), and 5692 (notice 

of allowance) are SUSTAINED. The Court has considered the specific 

proffer offered by defendants who seek introduction of this evidence for 

purposes of demonstrating non-infringement under the doctrine of 

equivalents due to separate patentability. The Court finds that while such 

evidence may be permissible in the ordinary case, here its introduction 

would be inappropriate given that no defense expert has opined on the 

relevance or applicability of this patent application and related documents. 

In fact, the Court finds this to be a backdoor attempt to introduce such 

evidence through Dr. Konstantino as an undisclosed expert. This proffer is 

not only untimely, but would unduly prejudice plaintiff. 

c. Plaintiff’s objection to Trial Exhibit 5773 on the grounds that the exhibit 

was not timely disclosed in an exhibit list is SUSTAINED. The claim that 

this is proffered as rebuttal to unanticipated trial testimony is belied by the 

plaintiff’s timely designation of the Feld deposition excerpts in question. 

This Order does not preclude Dr. Konstantino from testifying as to this 

issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 16, 2015 ______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-03393-YGR Document 764 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2