United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
DSM IP ASSETS, B.V. & DSM BIO-BASED PRODUCTS & SERVICES, B.V., Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants
LALLEMAND SPECIALTIES, INC. & MASCOMA LLC, Defendants and Counterclaimants.
WILLIAM M. CONLEY DISTRICT JUDGE
court held a final pretrial conference today, hearing
argument on defendants' motion for reconsideration and
reserved motions in limine, and directing the parties to file
supplemental briefing on certain issues. The purpose of this
order is to memorialize those rulings.
DSM's MIL No. 6 is GRANTED, except that defense counsel
may introduce the fact of Professor Alper's taking over
Professor Stephanopoulos's role in this case and what he
examined to begin his work. If Professor Stephanopoulos's
name comes up, the jury will be informed that a severe
illness necessitated his replacement with Professor Alper.
reserved portion of Lallemand's MIL No. 3 is GRANTED as
to the reserved portion of Lallemand's MIL No. 5,
plaintiffs may have until Tuesday, May 1, 2018, to file a
brief proffer regarding Firestart's relevance to this
case, if any. Lallemand may respond by May 3. Otherwise,
plaintiffs' expert may rely on LAL00198968 only as
evidence that Lallemand believed that DSM might
become a competitor with respect to industrial GMO yeast.
Further, defendants' concerns about late production of
documents are moot at this point in light of plaintiffs'
representation that the produced documents only concern
court clarified that under its ruling on DSM's MIL No. 3,
defendants may introduce evidence related to the proper use
of the Blomberg assay. The court will reconsider
defendants' ability to argue that Blomberg assay is
capable of measuring GPD2 activity, as opposed to GPD1
activity or a combination of GPD1 and GPD2 activity.
Contrary to the written opinion (dkt. #228), Lallemand's
MIL No. 14 is GRANTED, unless defendants open the door.
Lallemand may renew its MIL No. 13 (to trifurcate) at the end
of the liability phase at trial.
trial, motions in limine result in standing objections;
parties do not need to object again at trial if previously
denied in the court's MIL rulings.
Plaintiffs will have until Tuesday, May 1, to address whether
the court may exercise discretion in deciding whether Aaron
Argyros may be called adversely live, rather than be
presented via video deposition designations under Rule
32(a)(3) as a manager of an opposing party.
Defendants shall have until the end of the day on Friday,
April 27, to brief and propose changes to the introductory
jury instructions. Plaintiffs shall have until the end of the
day on Monday, April 30, to respond.
Plaintiffs may have until the end of the day Friday, April
27, to propose changes and brief the last two sentences in
the prior art and obviousness closing instructions.
Defendants shall ...