`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 12-cv-11758
`HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
`
`vs.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`__________________________________/
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING PHASE 2 TRIAL
`
`On May 21, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Submission Regarding the Schedule
`
`and Related Issues for the Phase 2 Trial. The parties have raised several disputed
`
`issues in their present filing. Upon review of the parties’ Joint Submission, the Court
`
`orders the following:
`
`1.
`
`Pretrial Filings
`
`The Court declines to order the parties to file a separate Final Pretrial Order for
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 536 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 44325
`
`the Phase 2 trial. A Final Pretrial Order has already been filed in this case. As such,
`
`the parties have already disclosed all witnesses, deposition designations, exhibits and
`
`made their respective objections thereto. Additionally, the Court has ordered
`
`Everlight to identify its inequitable conduct arguments by May 27, 2015. The Court
`
`finds no benefit to requiring the parties to repeat disclosures already made. Nichia’s
`
`proposal for a separate Final Pretrial Order is DENIED.
`
`2.
`
`Trial Procedure
`
`The Court declines to amend the parties’ Agreements Regarding Trial
`
`Procedure. The Court likewise sees no benefit to re-visit the agreed to procedures.
`
`Nichia’s proposal for an Amendment to the parties’ Agreements Regarding Trial
`
`Procedure is DENIED.
`
`3.
`
`Laches
`
`Nichia argues that Everlight must proceed with its laches defense during the
`
`Phase 2 trial. Everlight counters that in light of the jury’s verdict on validity,
`
`Everlight’s laches defense is moot. Nichia asserts that if Everlight declines to present
`
`its laches defense during the Phase 2 trial, Nichia should be allowed to reserve its right
`
`to argue that Everlight has waived its laches defense. The Court declines to permit
`
`Nichia to maintain that Everlight has waived its laches defense, which is only relevant
`
`if the invalidity finding is reversed. As such, it is a waste of judicial resources to
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 536 Filed 05/27/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 44326
`
`proceed with this defense at this stage of the proceedings. Additionally, the Court
`
`finds no justification to change its original position denying Nichia’s request to
`
`dismiss Everlight’s inequitable conduct claims without prejudice and certify this case
`
`for appeal under Rule 54(b). Nichia’s proposals concerning laches and inequitable
`
`conduct are DENIED.
`
`4.
`
`Objections
`
`Nichia requests that a date be set for both parties to file objections to the
`
`witnesses, exhibits and deposition designations made by the other party and has
`
`proposed that June 5, 2015 be set for this deadline. The Court declines to require the
`
`parties to object to evidence that has already been objected to in the Final Pretrial
`
`Order. Nichia may orally re-raise its objections during the Phase 2 trial. Additionally,
`
`the Court will not entertain any further motions in limine. When the Court ordered
`
`motions in limine, the trial had not yet been severed into separate trials. The parties
`
`should have included all of their in limine arguments in their previously filed motions
`
`in limine. Accordingly, Nichia’s proposals with respect to objections and a second
`
`round of motions in limine are DENIED.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 27, 2015
`
`/s/Gershwin A Drain
`GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`-3-
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
