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 9, 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 DEFENDANTS BELKIN AND NETGEAR'S DIRECT EXAMINATION DEMONSTRATIVES FOR DR. GREGORY LEONARD AND D-LINK'S DIRECT EXAMINATION EXHIBITS AND DEMONSTRATIVES FOR DR. RUSSELL MANGUM

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/ DEMONSTRATIVES

Court's Ruling on Objections Direct Examination Slide #9 Sustained in part, overruled in part. Fujitsu objects to Slide 9 of Dr. Leonard's direct examination, which identifies several non-parties to this case that NETGEAR and Belkin contend are "Unlicensed PC Card Sellers" and "Unlicensed or Royalty Free Router/Access Point Sellers." Fujitsu contends that this slide should be excluded for the following reasons: (1) there has been no evidence presented during trial to establish that these companies make or sell infringing products that would require a license, thereby making this evidence irrelevant, misleading, and lacking a proper foundation; and (2) displaying this demonstrative would be improper in light of the Court's prior rulings excluding evidence of third-party products from this case. Defendants Belkin and NETGEAR argue that this slide lists other companies to make the point that, because there are so many unlicensed and non-infringing competitors, Defendants would have been less likely to agree to a high royalty rate. Defendants contend that this slide is directly relevant to Georgia Pacific factors 1 and 4, as well as the bargaining positions of the parties to a hypothetical negotiation. Defendants also note that Fujitsu's damages expert, Mr. Meyer, cited the source document for these lists in coming up with his own market-share

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121209

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.