Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00634-36/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monsanto Company
Counter-claimant
The Regents of the University of California
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff, No. C 04-0634 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART 

 MONSANTO COMPANY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of plaintiff’s expert,

Kenneth Burchfiel, came on for hearing before this court on January 25, 2006. Plaintiff the

Regents of the University of California (“UC Regents”) appeared through its counsel, Erica

Wilson and Gerald Dodson. Defendant Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) appeared

through its counsel, Victoria Maroulis. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the

court hereby GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part as follows, for the

reasons stated at the hearing.

Preliminarily, the court notes that, while defendant framed it as such, the instant

motion is not truly a Daubert motion. The substance of the issues raised by the parties do

not actually go to whether the technical background of Mr. Burchfiel – or any of the

witnesses to whom Mr. Burchfiel responds – is sufficient. Rather, the real issue presented

by the parties is whether or not the court should use its discretion to allow Mr. Burchfiel’s

expert testimony because it will aid the trier of fact. As the court stated at the hearing on

defendant’s motion, provided that an expert’s testimony (insofar as that expert testifies to

matters bearing on legal issues) relies on settled law (e.g., law of the case or agreed upon

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 868 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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

jury instructions), then generally speaking, that expert may testify. Where an expert

proposes to testify, however, to legal issues that may contradict the law to be presented to

the trier of fact, such testimony cannot purport to aid the trier of fact.

With these principles in mind, the court rules as follows:

1. To the extent Mr. Burchfiel’s report and proposed testimony includes an

overview of legal patent principles and general patent law (generally located

at pages 3-52 of Mr. Burchfiel’s report), defendant’s motion is GRANTED and

such testimony is excluded. This does not, however, include any testimony

that addresses general PTO practice and procedures.

2. To the extent Mr. Burchfiel’s report and proposed testimony opines on the

legal issue of infringement as it applies in the case (generally located at

pages 52-73 of Mr. Burchfiel’s report), the trier of fact is entitled to make such

assessment on its own without potentially conflicting expert evidence. 

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is GRANTED on this issue and such

testimony is excluded.

3. To the extent Mr. Burchfiel’s report and proposed testimony opines on the

issue of the reasonableness of Monsanto’s reliance on the opinion of its

counsel (generally located at pages 78-117 of Mr. Burchfiel’s report), the trier

of fact is entitled to consider such evidence, and Mr. Burchfiel may opine

freely as to this issue. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is DENIED as to this

issue. 

4. To the extent Mr. Burchfiel’s report and proposed testimony opines on the

issue of willful infringement (generally located at pages 73-78 of Mr.

Burchfiel’s report), although this is legal testimony better left to the court, the

court recognizes that it will be difficult for Mr. Burchfiel to testify as to the

reasonable reliance issue without at least some discussion of the law of

willfulness. Accordingly, the court holds that Mr. Burchfiel may testify on this

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 868 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

issue, but such testimony must be within the limits of the Northern District’s

Patent Jury Instructions (unless the parties agree to an alternative via

stipulation). Defendant’s motion on this issue is DENIED.

The parties are reminded that, in order for an expert to properly opine on issues

related to patent law in this case, the experts must present testimony rooted in settled law. 

To make this determination, the parties should look to (1) the Northern District Patent Jury

Instructions; and (2) the law of the case (i.e., prior orders, claim construction, etc.). In the

event the parties are still unable to reach agreement as to a uniform source of law, the

parties may seek guidance from the court. 

Furthermore, as stated at the hearing, defendant’s corresponding request to file

Exhibit B to the declaration of Victoria Maroulis under seal is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00634-PJH Document 868 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3