D.I. 13 at 17. “[T]he [C]ourt will not pre-judge the yet-unnamed jurors by assuming they are unable to digest the facts and law in this case.” Sprint, 2021 WL 982730, at *2 (quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, C. A. No. 05-701-GMS, 2006 WL 1452803, at * 4 (D. Del. May 25, 2006)). Also, Plaintiffs contend that their original claims and the affirmative defense must be examined together because “Plaintiffs' claims and [their] arguments in response to Defendants' affirmative defense are inextricably intertwined such that depriving Plaintiffs an opportunity to show the full picture of this case-and the discovery required to make that showing-will result in prejudice to the Plaintiffs.” D.I. 18 at 16.; see also Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., C. A. No. 17-14-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 365708, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2019) (denying bifurcation where holding two trials “would result in prejudice to L'Oreal by requiring L'Oreal to present the same evidence at the two trials.”]

See Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., C. A. No. 17-14-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 365708, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2019) (denying motion to bifurcate based on potentially overlapping evidence between claims and explaining that “holding separate trials on L'Oreal's Lanham Act, false promise, breach of contract, and false marking counterclaims would result in prejudice to L'Oreal by requiring L'Oreal to present the same evidence at two separate trials.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, C. A. No. 05-701-GMS, 2006 WL 1452803, at *4 (D. Del. May 25, 2006) (declining to bifurcate antitrust claims from patent claims where “the evidentiary presentation in one case would likely be substantially duplicative of the evidentiary presentation in the other.”).

"[T]he [C]ourt will not pre-judge the yet-unnamed jurors by assuming they are unable to digest the facts and law in this case." Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, 2006 WL 1452803, at * 4 (D. Del. May 25, 2006). As Dr. Cooklev's testing and opinions are relevant to Plaintiffs infringement case, Defendant's motion to exclude for irrelevancy is denied.

"[T]he [C]ourt will not pre-judge the yet-unnamed jurors by assuming they are unable to digest the facts and law in this case." Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, 2006 WL 1452803, at * 4 (D. Del. May 25, 2006). I note that Defendants argue that the expert report on infringement is 3,271 pages, while Plaintiff contends that only 1,534 pages of the report are relevant to Defendants.

A split of authority exists among the courts on this issue. Compare Gensler v. Strabala, 764 F.3d 735, 737 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying Rule 9(b) to Lanham Act claims), with N.J. Physicians United Reciprocal Exch. v. Boynton & Boynton, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 298, 307-08 (D.N.J. 2015) (applying an intermediate approach to Lanham Act claims), and Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, C.A. No. 05-701-GMS, 2006 WL 1452803, at *2-3 (D. Del. May 25, 2006) (applying Rule 8 to Lanham Act claim). Consistent with other courts within the Third Circuit, the undersigned judicial officer adopts the intermediate standard of review.

8. Holding separate trials on L'Oréal's Lanham Act, false promise, breach of contract, and false marking counterclaims would result in prejudice to L'Oréal by requiring L'Oréal to present the same evidence at two separate trials. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, C.A. No. 05-701-GMS, 2006 WL 1452803, at *4 (D. Del. May 25, 2006) (declining to bifurcate antitrust claims from patent claims where "the evidentiary presentation in one case would likely be substantially duplicative of the evidentiary presentation in the other."). The evidence relating to L'Oréal's counterclaims overlaps with the evidence L'Oréal intends to present as a defense to Olaplex's affirmative claims, and L'Oréal will present the evidence at the first trial in connection with its defenses even if bifurcation is granted.

There is no universal practice of bifurcating and staying antitrust claims from patent claims in infringement cases. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Case No. 05-701, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33751, at *10-13 (D. Del. May 25, 2006) (refusing to bifurcate antitrust claims from patent claims and rejecting patentee's argument that other courts routinely do so); Climax Molybedenum Co. v. Molychem, L.L.C., 414 F. Supp.2d 1007, 1014 (D. Colo. 2005) (denying bifurcation and noting "[b]ifurcation of patent and antitrust claims...is not mandated"). III.

The trial court, as an exercise of "informed discretion," decides whether to bifurcate on a case-by-case basis. Barr Labs. v. Abbot Labs., 978 F.2d 98, 115 (3d Cir. 1992); Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, 64 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33751, at *9-*13 (D. Del. May 25, 2006). To inform its exercise of discretion, the court considers whether bifurcation would avoid prejudice, promote efficiency, conserve judicial resources, and avoid juror confusion, keeping in mind that the underlying goal is a just and expeditious final disposition of the matter.