Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 13-723 - LPS, April 18, 2016. (redacted April 22, 2016)

Stark, C. J. Defendants’ renewed motion for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part; defendants’ request for discovery is denied.

After a history of contentious discovery disputes and due to defendant’s late disclosure of core technical documents only a few days before trial, the court made the following rulings which are the subject to this motion for reconsideration:

  1. Plaintiff is allowed to conduct post-trial discovery;
  2. AVX must produce a privilege log for all documents relating to a particular accused product (Ingenio);
  3. The prior grant of no willful infringement is vacated; and
  4. Summary judgment that the Ingenio products infringe the patent-in-suit.

The court denies reconsideration with to rulings 1-3, but reconsiders its dispositive ruling of infringement. Defendant’s request for reconsideration is denied to the extent it asks the court to reconsider its exercise of case management authority. However, now that the court has had time to review the record and circumstances of misrepresentations during the pretrial conference and a late production of core documents, defendant’s motion is granted with respect to the court’s grant of summary judgment of infringement and vacates that dispositive ruling. The court determines that the lesser sanction of depriving defendant of the opportunity to try damages and validity with respect to the patent-in-suit at the same trial as infringement is tried is more appropriate.