Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. et al v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc., No. 6:2018cv00070 - Document 278 (W.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 228 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine; denying 241 Defendant's First Sealed Motion in Limine; granting 233 Defendant's Second Motion in Limine; granting 234 Defenda nt's Third Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 235 Defendant's Fourth Motion in Limine; granting 242 Defendant's Fifth Sealed Motion in Limine; denying 236 Defendant's Sixth Motion in Limine; & denying 237 Defendant's Seventh Motion in Limine. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on June 23, 2022. (ca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. et al v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. Case 6:18-cv-00070-NKM-RSB Document 278 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 8317 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Doc. 278 6/23/2022 LYNCHBURG DIVISION CROWN PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, CASE NO. 6:18-cv-70 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER v. BELVAC PRODUCTION MACHINERY, INC., Defendant. JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON This memorandum opinion and order summarizes the Court’s holdings on the motions in limine argued at the pretrial conference on June 15, 2022. The Court holds as follows: The first part of Crown’s motion in limine, Dkt. 228, to exclude evidence that Belvac has patents on the accused product, is DENIED. Although it is true that Belvac holding patents on the accused product is not a defense to infringement, Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genetech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996), the Court holds that Belvac holding patents on the accused product is relevant to the claims that the parties will likely make at trial about whether Belvac does or does not have a corporate culture that encourages infringement. See Canon, Inc. v. Color Imaging, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1307 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (admitting accused infringers’ patent as relevant as evidence of its “general corporate culture”). The Court will issue a jury instruction noting that Belvac holding patents on the accused product is not a defense to infringement, which will cure any prejudice to Crown that this evidence creates. See id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:18-cv-00070-NKM-RSB Document 278 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 8318 The second part of Crown’s motion in limine, Dkt. 228, to exclude evidence relating to Alphonse Stroobants, his descendants, or his foundations, is GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record at the final pretrial conference. Belvac’s first motion in limine, Dkt. 241, to exclude evidence relating to the 131 Publication and 843 Patent, is DENIED. Crown must show at trial that Belvac had knowledge of the Asserted Patents, so, to the extent that Belvac’s knowledge of the 131 Publication also tends to show its knowledge of the Asserted Patents, Belvac’s knowledge of the 131 Publication is relevant and thus admissible evidence. The Court does not find that the prejudice to Belvac of admitting this evidence is so high that exclusion under Rule 403 is warranted. Belvac’s second motion in limine, Dkt. 233, relating to prior litigation between the parties, is GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record at the pretrial conference. Belvac’s third motion in limine, Dkt. 234, relating to Dover Corporation’s ownership of Belvac, is GRANTED for the reasons stated at the pretrial conference. Belvac’s fourth motion in limine, Dkt. 235, relating to the overall revenues and financial health of Belvac and Dover Corporation, is GRANTED with respect to Dover’s revenues financial status and DENIED with respect to Belvac’s. Evidence about Belvac’s and Dover’s financial status is not relevant to damages, which, if awarded, will be based on the extent the infringement harmed Crown, not on Belvac’s or Dover’s overall revenues. But the Court holds that Belvac’s revenues at the time of the alleged infringement are relevant to and admissible for the limited purpose of explaining Crown’s theory that Belvac infringed Crown’s patent because Belvac’s revenues were suffering due to Crown’s market presence. The Court will hear individual objections to this evidence at trial but holds for now that Crown is not categorically prohibited from introducing evidence of Belvac’s revenues and financial status. 2 Case 6:18-cv-00070-NKM-RSB Document 278 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 8319 Belvac’s fifth motion in limine, Dkt. 242, relating to an alleged design flaw in the accused product’s prototype, is GRANTED for the reasons stated at the pretrial conference. Belvac’s sixth motion in limine, Dkt. 236, relating to the presumption of validity, is DENIED for the reasons stated at the pretrial conference. Belvac’s seventh motion in limine, Dkt. 237, relating to the patent drawings, is DENIED. The Court holds that the patent drawings are relevant and admissible for the purpose of explaining the shape of the die surface (i.e., whether it is tapered). Crown and its experts may not represent that the patent drawings represent “precise dimensions,” but the Court understands that Crown and its experts do not intend to do so. In sum, the motions in limine at Dkt. 233, 234, and 242 are GRANTED. The motions in limine at Dkt. 236, 237, and 241 are DENIED. The motions in limine at Dkt. 228 and 235 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to send this opinion and order to all counsel of record. Entered this 23rd ___ day of June 2022. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
