Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc.

Background

The court issued this pretrial order after considering the parties’ filings and submissions at a June 23, 2023 pretrial conference. The order governs preparation and conduct for the trial in this patent dispute; it does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.

Orders Regarding Trial

The court confirmed that trial would begin July 5, 2023, in Courtroom 1. Jury selection would begin at approximately 9:00 a.m., and trial would generally run Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 1:40 p.m. Each side would have 11 hours to present its case, including opening statements and closing arguments.

The court set the next pretrial conference for June 30, 2023, by Zoom. It excluded witnesses until they completed their testimony and barred references to settlement discussions, mediation, insurance, and a party’s wealth except during any punitive-damages phase. The court allowed Chris Diorio to serve as Impinj’s corporate representative and Pete Roosien to serve as NXP’s corporate representative.

The court stated that one motion in limine—a motion to exclude anticipated evidence before it is offered—was pending at Docket No. 350 and would be decided by separate order. The parties must inform witnesses of the court’s rulings, and violations could result in sanctions, including striking all of a witness’s testimony.

Witnesses, Exhibits, and Evidence

The parties were limited to the witnesses and exhibits listed for the pretrial conference. Additional witnesses would require a court order based on good cause, including rebuttal or impeachment. The parties also had to provide a joint list of witnesses, attorneys, and others involved in the trial for prospective jurors.

Documents or other objects could not be shown to a witness until marked for identification. The parties had to update and resubmit their joint exhibit list and provide expert disclosures and any offers of judgment made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The order also established procedures for lodging deposition transcripts, identifying transcripts for daily use, and preparing exhibit indexes.

The court warned that witnesses must be ready when needed and that a party could be deemed to have rested if it could not produce its next witness. Trial time would continue to run while waiting for witnesses. The court prohibited speaking objections and allowed written questions from jurors, subject to review by the court and counsel.

Jury and Trial Materials

The court set a jury of eight people with no alternates and allowed three peremptory challenges per side. It would conduct voir dire, and each party would have 15 minutes to address prospective jurors. Challenges alleging improper use of peremptory strikes had to be made promptly.

The parties had to prepare jury instructions in the court’s required format and provide jury binders, a glossary of technical terms, information about the patents and claims at issue, any claim constructions made by the court or agreed to by the parties, a timeline if useful, and copies of the patents with the disputed claims highlighted or boxed. Although the parties’ stipulation referred to twelve binders, the court ordered that only ten binders were required.

The parties could use certain encrypted wireless equipment, had to test courtroom equipment in advance, and were directed to review the court’s policy on jurors’ use of computers during deliberations. The court also approved the parties’ stipulation concerning exchanges of exhibits, demonstratives, deposition designations, source-code materials, confidential information, juror notes, and other trial procedures, subject to the requirements in the order.

Settlement and Compliance

Counsel had to promptly notify the court of any settlement. The trial and trial-related dates would not be vacated until a formal notice of settlement and dismissal was filed. The parties also had to meet and confer about whether additional evidence concerning injunctive relief would be offered after the jury was charged.

The court warned that failure to comply with the order could result in sanctions appropriate to the seriousness of the violation, including monetary fines or terminating sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the pretrial order and approved the parties’ joint stipulation regarding trial conduct, while requiring ten jury binders rather than twelve. The order set trial procedures and did not rule on the merits of Impinj’s or NXP’s underlying patent claims.