By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, et al. v. Canon Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11-792-SLR (D.Del., May 18, 2015), the Court granted plaintiff’s alternative motion for a new trial regarding infringement of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,121,960 (“the ‘960 patent”) and 5,754,348 (“the ‘348 patent”) after concluding that defense counsel in his closing argument improperly played the role of expert witness by inferring from factual testimony that the accused devices did not meet the claim limitations arguments. The court found such argument to be contrary to a pre-trial agreement that defendant would not present any evidence of non-infringement, including evidence of a lack of a subjective intent to infringe, particularly given that the Court previously barred certain testimony from plaintiff’s witnesses on the topic during the trial. Id. at 40-47.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.