Intellectual Property Law

As one Delaware jurist used to ask, ?how many times do you patent lawyers want me to try your case??  It was a rhetorical inquiry, since the judge had the power to keep it to one, even though the lawyers might prefer 3 trials: claim construction, liability and damages (plus maybe a TRO mini-trial on the front end).

The new school of patentee?s counsel tend to prefer one trial, hit hard and quick on the big issues, then shift the burden to infringer?s counsel to bore the jurors with proving all of the details.

That approach went under reconsideration after reading St. Clair IPC v. Fuji Photo, 1:03-CV-231 (D. Del. 11/19/09).  The jury upheld the patent and awarded damages based on .5% royalty rate.  St. Clair moved for a new trial on damages because evidence of other licenses, obtained under litigation duress, were excluded from evidence.  The judge ruled that the risk of prejudice outweighed the probative value, ?particularly in light of the fact that damages and liability were being tried together.?  The obverse of that ?particular? may be that had damages be tried separately, then the litigation-induced licenses would have been admitted for the jury to consider.
The ?whoops? factor (scarred litigator-speak) was that someone in the courtroom must have thought having two trials was the better option, and it wasn?t St. Clair.  ?In this regard, the Court notes that St. Clair opposed the bifurcation of liability and damages.?

There are plenty of cases, pro and con, on admitting evidence of royalty rates in licenses obtained after litigation was threatened or underway.  It can be held out, especially where those are the only licenses.  It can come in with a cautionary instruction to the jury, or it can just come in after cross-exam and closing argument explain the differences between arms-length and arm-twisting.

In that perfect world of the engineering mind, each issue would get full treatment, and if that takes separate trials, then OK.  But, the litigator?s mindset is to get to verdict as soon as possible, without being unduly rushed. For that, one trial plainly is preferable.  If a choice between bifurcation, trifurcation or singularity carries a risk of my evidence being excluded from the single trial, but admitted in one of separate trials, then tell me that - before any trial, and before I decide on bifurcation.