Summary
finding that plaintiff's patent valuation in his marital property division was relevant and admissible at an infringement trial
Summary of this case from Visteon Glob. Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int'l, Inc.Opinion
Civil No. 98-963-AS
October 20, 2000
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 8, 2000. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. V. Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); see also, Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
Accordingly, I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 255) that defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 187) based upon the doctrine of judicial estoppel should be DENIED, and that plaintiff's patent valuation in his marital property division should be relevant, admissible evidence at trial with an appropriate jury instruction comparable to a case involving spoliation of evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.