In granting plaintiff’s motion in limine, the court relied on the difference in standards – “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail” contrasted with the “clear and convincing” standard. The court also noted that after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted inter partes review, the nonparty petitioner settled and the inter partes review proceeding was dismissed, without the PTAB rendering a decision. The court further noted that the evidence would be confusing to the jury and prejudicial to plaintiffs without a “timeconsuming explanation of the PTAB procedures.” “Telling the jury that the patent has been called into question by the Patent Office may influence the jury’s application of the presumption of validity and prejudice [plaintiff].” The court concluded that the prejudicial potential of the evidence substantially outweighed any probative value.
Ivera Medical Corporation et al v. Hospira, Inc., 314cv01345 (S.D. Cal. July 21, 2015, Order) (Huff, J.).