Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


December 3, 2012

FUJITSU LIMITED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; BELKIN, INC.; D-LINK CORPORATION; D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.; NETGEAR, INC.; ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION; AND ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.'S DIRECT EXAMINATION EXHIBITS FOR A.J. WANG

After reviewing the parties' briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 403, the Court rules on the parties' 14 objections as follows: 15

EXHIBITS Court's Ruling on Objections Attachment to DTX 792 dealing with interim office actions Sustained. Defendants' Exhibit Number 792 is the January 14, 2011 opinion letter from D-Link's opinion counsel, Mr. E. Robert Yoches, to D- Link's outside counsel, Christine Yang. D-Link intends to admit this exhibit through the direct examination of Mr. Wang, D-Link's corporate "relier." Fujitsu does not object to the use of the January 2011 opinion letter during the direct examination of Mr. Wang. ECF No. 470. However, Fujitsu objects to the documents that were attached to the opinion letter. Specifically, Fujitsu objects to the exhibits that involve interim office actions. In Fujitsu's Motion in Limine #2, the Court already ruled that, pursuant to FRE 403, the potential prejudice of admitting evidence relating to interim office actions outweighs any probative value. Accordingly, these documents may not be admitted into evidence at trial. DTX 526, DTX 592, DTX 630, DTX 715*fn1

The Court overrules Fujitsu's objections to DTX 526, 592, 630, and 715, each of which is a prior art document that was attached to the January 2011

Yoches opinion. Although Fujitsu's objection is predicated on a lack of foundation, Fujitsu does not actually appear to be contesting the authenticity of these exhibits. Notably, Fujitsu has already stipulated to the admissibility of DTX 526, 592, 630, and 715 for the limited purpose of lack of willfulness and active inducement. Moreover, Fujitsu concedes that "it may be appropriate to admit these exhibits through D-Link's opinion counsel, Mr. Yoches." ECF No. 470 at 3. Therefore, Fujitsu's objection appears only procedural in nature. But see Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Media Breakaway, LLC, No. 08-937, 2009 WL 2231678, at 3(C.D. Cal. July 22, 2009) (citing Fenje v. Feld, 301 F. Supp. 2d 781, 789 (N.D. Ill. 2003), for the proposition that "[e]ven if a party fails to authenticate a document properly or to lay a proper foundation, the opposing party is not acting in good faith in raising such an objection if the party nevertheless knows that the document is authentic."). Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 901(a), the Court finds that D-Link System's exhibits appear to be genuine on their face and that their probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. See United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334, 1342 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that FRE 901(a) only requires "that the court admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification. The credibility or probative force of the evidence offered is, ultimately, an issue for the jury."); see also Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) (stating that evidence that satisfies the authenticity requirements includes, but is not limited to, "[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.").

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK

ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.'S DIRECT EXAMINATION EXHIBITS


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.