Opinion ID: 3052022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: L.A. Biomed Preserved Its Objections to the

Text: Disputed Instructions. As an initial matter, Dr. White argues that L.A. Biomed waived any objection to the disputed instructions either by failing to object at the charge conference or by later acquiescing to the district court’s final instructions. [1] For an objection to a jury instruction to be valid, the objection must be made “on the record, stating distinctly the 5 The model agency instruction given to the jury read: Work of Dr. Yu You have heard testimony about both Dr. Geoffrey White and Dr. Weiyun Yu. Dr. Yu is neither a party to this case nor a signatory to the Patent and Copyright Agreement at issue. L.A. Biomed makes no separate claim against Dr. Yu in this case. L.A. Biomed claims that Dr. Yu was Dr. White’s agent and that Dr. White is therefor responsible for Dr. Yu’s conduct with respect to the Patent and Copyright Agreement. If L.A. Biomed proves that Dr. White gave Dr. Yu authority to act on his behalf, then Dr. Yu was Dr. White’s agent. This authority may be shown by words or may be implied by the parties’ conduct. This authority cannot be shown by the words of Dr. Yu alone. If L.A. Biomed does not prove that Dr. Yu was Dr. White’s agent, you should not consider Dr. Yu’s conduct in reaching your decision. 5554 LOS ANGELES BIOMED. RESEARCH INST. v. WHITE matter objected to and the grounds for the objection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 51(c)(1). In its proposed jury instructions L.A. Biomed stated clearly its position that “no agency instruction should be given as an agency instruction is irrelevant and confusing. L.A. Biomed submits that the effect of [Drs. Yu and White’s] collaboration is more appropriately addressed in L.A. Biomed’s proposed conception and reduction to practice instruction[s].” At the charge conference, L.A. Biomed’s counsel distinctly stated her objection to the application of agency law, instead of patent law, in both the “Work of Dr. Yu” and “Reduce to Practice” instructions. Thus, L.A. Biomed preserved for appeal its objection to these two instructions. Dr. White argues also that L.A. Biomed waived its objection by acquiescing to the “Conceive” instruction when its counsel responded at the charge conference, “I think that’s fine,” after the district court read the version that was ultimately presented to the jury. Although “[t]his court has enjoyed a reputation as the strictest enforcer of Rule 51,” we recognize a limited exception “[w]here the district court is aware of a party’s concerns and further objection would be unavailing.” Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1326 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). The exception is available “when (1) throughout the trial the party argued the disputed matter with the court, (2) it is clear from the record that the court knew the party’s grounds for disagreement with the instruction, and (3) the party offered an alternative instruction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). [2] At trial, after L.A. Biomed submitted its proposed instructions but prior to L.A. Biomed’s alleged acquiescence, the district court had rejected the co-inventorship language from the “Conceive” instruction. Specifically, the court stated, “I was concerned when I was reading some of the proposed . . . instructions on this issue that we were kind of slopping over into . . . inventorship, co-inventorship, which is a totally different body of law that this jury is not going to be considerLOS ANGELES BIOMED. RESEARCH INST. v. WHITE 5555 ing.” Thus it is clear that the district court was aware of L.A. Biomed’s disagreement with the “Conceive” instruction and that further objection at the charge conference would have been unavailing.6 Therefore, we conclude that L.A. Biomed’s objection to the “Conceive” instruction was preserved. See id.