Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc.

Background

This trial order addressed trial-related issues and three docketed motions. The dispute concerned two remaining patents: the ’302 patent, directed to the shape of a channel between large pads, and the ’597 patent, directed to an improved rectifier design. NXP moved to strike portions of expert reports and testimony from Dr. Scott E. Thompson and Lauren R. Kindler. Impinj filed a related motion to supplement the record.

The court also addressed prospective-juror questionnaires. It ordered counsel to certify by August 4, 2023, that the questionnaires and information derived from them had been destroyed, including by any clients, consultants, or other non-lawyers who received access. The court allowed an administrative request to extend that deadline if either party needed the information for appeal purposes. The court further clarified that Franz Amtmann could testify about the extent of his personal knowledge of any teardown conducted by NXP of products that Impinj alleged NXP copied.

NXP’s Motion to Strike

The court denied as moot NXP’s request to strike Dr. Thompson’s opinions because those opinions related solely to the ’631 patent, which the court had already found NXP did not infringe. Because validity of that patent was no longer at issue, the court did not need to decide whether to exclude those opinions.

The court denied NXP’s request to strike Kindler’s opinions concerning the quantification of sales made outside the United States. At that stage, the court allowed testimony about whether substantial evidence supported Impinj’s claim for lost profits and directed Impinj to present the information in a way that allowed the jury to resolve the factual dispute.

The court also denied NXP’s arguments that Kindler had failed to disclose a lost-profits theory, a finished-goods-inventory theory, or sufficient factual support. It found that Impinj’s overall lost-profits theory and finished-goods theory had been disclosed sufficiently, although the finished-goods theory had been disclosed late in response to late-produced documents and witnesses. The court was not persuaded that NXP had been harmed by the timing.

The court further declined to exclude Kindler’s discussion of other Impinj patents as irrelevant. It found those patents relevant to hypothetical negotiations and left the significance of that information for the jury to weigh.

Motion to Supplement the Record and Disposition

Impinj sought to supplement the record with information about NXP’s position in a contemporaneous case in the Western District of Washington. Impinj argued that NXP’s positions concerning Kindler’s 25-percent apportionment figure were inconsistent between the two cases. The court stated that it need not examine the issue further at that stage and denied the motion to strike Kindler and Thompson.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied NXP’s motion to strike Kindler and Thompson and denied Impinj’s motion to supplement the record as moot. The order terminated Docket Nos. 239, 368, and 372.