Core Wireless Licensing ("Core Wireless") filed a patent infringement action against LG Electronics, Inc. ("LG"). As the matter approached trial, both parties filed motions in limine. Core Wireless filed a motion to prevent LG from making disparaging remarks regarding the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to the jury during trial.
The district court agreed that such remarks would not be appropriate and stated that "LG may not disparage the PTO and its examiners, such as by arguing that examiners are overworked or that the PTO is prone to error."
The district did, however, permit LG to offer evidence and arguments with regard to the asserted patents. "However, LG may offer evidence and argument that specific mistakes were made in connection with the prosecution of the asserted patents."
In response to the motion, LG also requested that the district court reciprocally preclude "irrelevant laudatory remarks by Core about the USPTO." The district court denied this request, finding it inconsistent with the presumption of validity enjoyed by every patent. "The law provides that 'a patent shall be presumed valid' and 'the PTO is presumed to have done its job correctly.' See 35 USC § 282; Siemens Med. Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011)."
Therefore, the district court concluded that "Core is not precluded from praising or lauding the PTO in a manner consistent with the presumption of validity."
Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. July 2016)