Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 289

Filed 09/29/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE __________________________________________ ) AFFINION NET PATENTS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) C.A. No. 04-360 (JJF) v. ) ) MARITZ, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF AFFINION NET PATENTS, INC. TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELATING TO THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY Defendant Maritz, Inc. ("Maritz") seeks to preclude Affinion from presenting evidence or arguments referring to or commenting on the presumption of validity. See D.I. 246. Affinion opposes this motion for the following reasons. Maritz seeks to improperly restrict Affinion's ability to present its validity case to the jury. Contrary to Maritz's brief, Affinion does not intend to argue that the presumption of validity constitutes evidence of validity. Avia Group Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., 853, F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988), is inapposite for this reason. Affinion is entitled, however, to tell the jury that a patent is presumed valid under the patent laws, for that is the law.1 See Donnelly Corp. v. Gentex Corp., 918 F. Supp. 1126 (W.D. Mich. 1996) (denying defendant's motion in limine seeking to preclude patentee from referencing the presumption of validity); Senmed, Inc. v. Richard-Allen Medical Indust., Inc., No. K84-444 CA, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17861, *27-28 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 1988) (finding it appropriate for counsel to argue weight of evidence in its closing arguments based on a proper

1

"A patent shall be presumed valid." 35 U.S.C. § 282 (2000).

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 289

Filed 09/29/2006

Page 2 of 3

instruction for presumption of validity). Maritz fails to cite a single case in which counsel was precluded from referring to the presumption of validity at trial. Contrary to Maritz's argument, U.S. v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135 (2nd Cir. 1988) does not preclude Affinion from referring to the presumption of validity at trial.2 In Scop, the court precluded an expert witness from providing legal conclusions regarding a criminal statute to the jury because the court found the expert's opinions were prejudicial and "calculated" to instruct the jury on the applicable law. See id. at 140. As discussed above, Affinion does not intend to offer witness testimony calculated to instruct the jury on law of validity. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Maritz's Motion In Limine Relating To The Presumption Of Validity should be denied. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Maryellen Noreika Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Maryellen Noreika ((#3208) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiff Affinion Net Patents, Inc. OF COUNSEL: Steven Lieberman Sharon L. Davis R. Elizabeth Brenner Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. 1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 783-6040 September 29, 2006
2

The parenthetical quotation provided after Scop in Maritz's motion does not appear anywhere in the Scop opinion. 2

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 289

Filed 09/29/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maryellen Noreika, hereby certify that on September 29, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following: Patricia Smink Rogowski Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz I also certify that copies were caused to be served on September 29, 2006 upon the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND Patricia Smink Rogowski Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz LLP The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS J. Bennett Clark Senniger Powers One Metropolitan Square St. Louis, MO 63102

/s/ Maryellen Noreika Maryellen Noreika (#3208) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 658-9200 [email protected]