Intellectual Property Law

Judge Robinson: Motion to exclude evidence DENIED where prejudice could be cured with limited additional discovery

By Karen E. Keller, Andrew A. Lundgren et al.

In Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., C.A. No. 07-272-SLR (D. Del. June 7, 2010), Judge Robinson denied defendant/counter plaintiff Palm?s motion to exclude evidence related to plaintiff/counter defendant Intermec?s ?Trakker? product, which was disclosed as prior art invalidating Palm?s patent. Id. at 1. Although the disclosure was untimely, per the terms of the scheduling order, ?the failure to make earlier Trakker disclosures was related to [Intermec?s expert?s] belief that the search for prior art which would invalidate the ?803 patent needed to be responsive to Palm?s infringement contentions.? Id. at 4. Judge Robinson permitted Palm to take additional discovery related to the Trakker disclosure, which can ?cure? any lack of clarity in Intermec?s expert?s expert opinion. Id. at 4-5.

Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., C.A. No. 07-272-SLR (D. Del. June 7, 2010)

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on June 10, 2010 (boomark / email).