Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 67-4 Filed 07/22/2005 Page1 0f4
EXHIBIT C

at ,e te ,. {Case 1:04-cv—00833-KAJ Document 67-4 Filed 07/22/2005 Page 2 gf 4 I
.` ` l , IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE- llnl 7.
THORN EMI NORTH AMERICA, INC., }
B
` _ , Flaintiff, ) Civil Action No.
T 1 92-673 (ERM)
‘ v. )
_ 1
. - MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and }
~ )
Deiendants. ) l
: }
, MICRCN sEMICON¤0CToR, IHC., ) g
) _ i
Counterclaimant, ) g
} g
v . }
>
THORN EMI NORTH AMERICA, INC., ) §
F
Counterdetendant. ) §
I
E
. Federal Courtroom §
No. 4 · 2nd Floor E
. _ U.S. Courthouse E
» 844 King Street i
. ` Wilmington, Delaware _
Tuesday, November 23, 1993
1:].5 p.m. ·
BEFORE: HONORABLB RODERICK R. MCKBLVIB
United States District Court Judge
Pretrial Conference
NILCCX a EETZER
‘ 1330 King Street - Wilmington, Delaware 19801
{302) 655-0477
Wilco: 8 Ferzer
Regisund Professional Repumm
fx W

=,·ajF_U_, rCase1:04 i The other day Judge Niece had to walk through with `‘-.__
2 me some of the Other mistakes that she thought were --‘
B 3 in there, most of them had to do with issues of law Ilnn Qt
4 versus issues of fact. And I'm going to look
- 5 .through them.
6 And there may never be a solution in *
7 life about this, but I do think what ends up
8 happening is people compromise by building a camel
9 in the instructions and nobody pays much attention
10 to it. And I spend an hour up here reading to the
ll jury stuff that just doesn’t make a whole lot of'
12 sense, but we will keep working on it and we'l1 see
13 if we can improve it.
9 14 Okay. Expert witness. Let me talk
15 for a minute about patent office practice and
16 procedure on expert witnesses on law. As people
17 know, the other judges in this district and I have
_ 18 adopted a general practice of stating that we don't
19 allow opinions on issues of law, that we do allow i
20 parties to call expert witnesses to testify on
2 patent office practice and procedure. And while I
22 know that certain lawyers think that's an exception
2 you can drive a truck through and you can offer all
2- kinds of opinion on law, in any event I try to stop
` \ Wilcox G Fatzcr
. Rqmud?MkmmdRq¤un

NCEIS _|¤ nz .I !::_---- _ , A'; _ N _;i A · I 5 `
l that truck from passing through this courtroom.
2 And I like to try to be as clear as I can be about
3 what my limitations are so there is no
4 embarrassment during the trial.
_ · 5 . And if you put a witness on and he’s
6 on and off in three minutes because you don't want
7 to here it, I won't let him talk to the jury about
8 it. I believe witnesses, expert witnesses on
9 patent office practice and procedure tend to be
10 helpful in the sense that you can put them on the
ll stand, they can take the file and they can walk the
12 jury through the file to explain to them what has
13 happened in the patent office and what the context
xt 14 is for what's happening.
15 And maybe that’s helpful in part
16 because the Court*s limit discovery and testimony
17 on patent office practice and procedure. For
18 example, we can't have a patent examiner here. So
1* to me it's almost an evidentiary aid to bring an
2• expert in, hand him a document and use a witness on
2 the stand to walk the jury through e paper that's
2» otherwise admitted into evidence, but they may not
2· understand it other than through argument by
2n counsel.
K .
Wnlcox 8 Fetzef
Regum·dPv¤f¢;si¤n¤iRzpanc¤