Summary
choosing to submit equitable defenses to an advisory jury rather than bifurcating the trial based on considerations of conservation of judicial resources and convenience of witnesses
Summary of this case from Innovation Ventures, LLC v. NVE, Inc.Opinion
No. 01-CV-1974.
September 25, 2006
Sidley Austin Brown Wood, Edward G. Poplawski, Esq., Bryan K. Anderson, Esq., Denise L. Mckenzie, Esq. Sandra S. Fujiyama, Esq., Los Angeles, California, and Cornell University Office of Counsel, James J. Mingle, Esq., Nelson Roth, Esq., Valerie Cross, Esq., Ithaca, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants.
DLA Piper, Rudnick, Gray Cary US LLP, John Allcock, Esq., Sean C. Cunningham, Esq., Stewart M. Brown, Esq., Arthur A. Wellman, Esq., Erin P. Gibson, Esq., San Diego, California, and Harter, Secrest Emery LP, Jerauld E. Brydges, Esq., Rochester, New York and, Fish, Richardson Law Firm, Barry K. Shelton, Esq., John E. Guist, Esq., Austin Texas, Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On July 14, 2006, defendant moved (Dkt. No. 653) for bifurcation of the trial in this patent infringement action and an expedited bench trial on the issue of unenforceability of the subject patent, based on defendant's defense of inequitable conduct. The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
On August 15, 2006, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 672) recommending that the motion be denied. Defendant has filed objections (Dkt. No. 677) to the Report and Recommendation; plaintiffs have responded (Dkt. No. 682).
Upon de novo review of the motion papers, the Report and Recommendation, defendant's objections, and plaintiffs' response, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 672) is accepted and adopted in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 653) for bifurcation of the trial and an expedited bench trial on the issue of unenforceability of the subject patent, based on defendant's defense of inequitable conduct, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.