Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02201/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02201-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEDTRONIC, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. GEOFFREY WHITE,

Defendant.

 /

LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

INSTITUTE AT HARBOR-UCLA MEDICAL

CENTER,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

 v.

GEOFFREY WHITE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 04-02201 JSW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART DR.

WHITE’S MOTION IN LIMINE

NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

AND ARGUMENT THAT DOES

NOT RELATE TO BENCH TOP

TESTING AT LA BIOMED/REI

At the final pretrial conference held on February 13, 2006, the Court reserved ruling on

Dr. White’s fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that does not relate to

bench top testing at LA Biomed/REI. The Court has now considered that motion and LA

Biomed’s opposition thereto and rules as follows:

As the Court ruled at the February 13, 2006 pretrial conference the “possibly patentable

device and/or product” at issue is the “overlapping GAD-graft device.” The parties’ evidence 

Case 3:04-cv-02201-JSW Document 353 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

and argument shall focus on whether or not Dr. White conceived of or reduced to practice the

“overlapping GAD-graft device,” while at LA Biomed. The Court shall preclude references to

other “possibly patentable devices and/or products,” by either party.

Ownership of the ‘904 Patent is not at issue in this lawsuit and no reference to that

patent shall be made by either party.

As the Court previously ruled, LA Biomed is not precluded from offering evidence of

conception of the “overlapping GAD-graft device.”

The Court has ruled that evidence of animal testing shall not be admitted as evidence of

reduction to practice. Accordingly, evidence of animal testing shall not be admitted for this

purpose. However, if Dr. White intends to rely on evidence of animal testing to show he

reduced to practice an “overlapping GAD-graft device” at a location other than L.A. Biomed,

the Court will revisit this ruling. To the extent animal testing at L.A. Biomed may be used as

evidence to show that Dr. White conceived of the “overlapping GAD-graft device” at L.A.

Biomed, the Court reverses the ruling it made during the pretrial conference, and evidence of

animal testing may be admitted to show conception. Further, to the extent evidence regarding

animal testing is offered to issues other than reduction to practice or conception, the Court will

address that issue at trial and, time spent resolving objections to the evidence shall be counted

against the party raising the objection regardless of the outcome.

Finally, evidence of Dr. Yu’s work at L.A. Biomed shall be admissible. The Court,

however, shall address the legal ramifications of Dr. Yu’s work by way of jury instructions and,

if necessary, when and if the need to address the appropriate remedy arises. Accordingly, the

parties shall not argue the implications of Dr. Yu’s work at L.A. Biomed in their opening

statements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02201-JSW Document 353 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2