Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-107/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., et

al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 06-0162 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 13

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion in Limine No. 13 to Preclude Defendants . . .

Reliance on Prior Art Not Properly Noticed According to 35 U.S.C. § 282,” filed August 30,

2007. Defendants have filed opposition thereto. The matter was argued at the Pretrial

Conference conducted September 4, 2007. Having considered the parties’ submissions in

support of and in opposition to the motion, and the arguments of counsel made at the

Pretrial Conference, the Court rules as follows.

Section 282 provides that a party who seeks to offer prior art to prove “anticipation of

the patent in suit” or “the state of the art” must give notice of the prior art “at least thirty

days before the trial.” See 35 U.S.C. § 282. If a party has not provided the statutorilyrequired amount of notice, a district court has the discretion to allow introduction of such

prior art if the opposing party would not be “deprived of an adequate opportunity to present

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 769 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 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

1

Defendants do not contend their proposed use of the two references falls outside

the scope of § 282.

2

Woodring cited S219 as an example of marketing materials that demonstrate side

view LEDs are not “hidden in use,” (see Krosin Decl., filed July 10, 2007, Ex. C ¶ 14 and

Ex. 1 thereto); he cited S236 generally, as one of over 600 references he “reviewed” before

concluding the patents in suit are valid, (see id. Ex. C ¶ 103 and Ex. 11 thereto).

3

At the Pretrial Conference, the Court continued the trial from September 10, 2007 to

October 22, 2007.

2

its case.” See Eaton Corp. v. Appliance Valves Corp., 790 F. 2d 874, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff seeks to preclude defendants from offering two prior art references,

specifically, “Nichia Webpage Products: InGan LED: SMD Type LED Side View Series”

(“S219”) and “Japanese Patent 6-204569” (“S236”). Plaintiff asserts, and defendants do

not dispute, that defendants did not give notice of their intention to rely on either such

reference more than 30 days prior to the September 10, 2007 trial date originally

scheduled.1

At the Pretrial Conference, defendants, for the first time, articulated the relevance of

the two references; defendants state they seek to use the references for purposes of crossexamining plaintiff’s infringement expert Cooper Woodring (“Woodring”) with respect to the

issue of points of novelty. Defendants next argue that because the two references are

mentioned in one of Woodring’s reports, plaintiff would not be prejudiced if Woodring is

questioned about such references. The Court disagrees that Woodring’s inclusion of the

two references in his report demonstrates a lack of prejudice to plaintiff, given there is no

showing Woodring even considered, let alone relied on, either reference with respect to his

opinion concerning points of novelty, or that plaintiff was aware defendants intended to do

so.2

 Nevertheless, in light of the recent 42-day continuance of the trial,3 the Court finds

Woodring will have sufficient time to prepare for this aspect of cross-examination. See

Eaton, 790 F. 2d at 879-80 (“The boundaries of the district court’s discretion are defined by

unfair, prejudicial harm to a party deprived of an adequate opportunity to present its case.”)

Accordingly, to the extent defendants seek to use S219 and/or S236 for the limited

purpose described above, the motion is hereby DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 769 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3

In the event defendants seek to offer said prior art references for any other purpose,

the motion is hereby GRANTED, and defendants may not use said prior art references for

any purpose other than cross-examination of Woodring on the issue of points of novelty,

without first seeking and obtaining permission outside the presence of the jury.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 769 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 3