`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 17613
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP.
`and MES Inc.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 19-1334-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`VOIR DIRE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 17614
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Judge Burke. I will now ask you questions
`
`which relate to your becoming jurors in this case. This part of a trial is called a voir dire
`
`examination of prospective jury members. “Voir dire” simply means that you will truthfully
`
`answer questions which are asked of you as a prospective juror in this proceeding. The purpose
`
`of the voir dire examination is:
`
`A.
`
`To gain knowledge about your attitudes concerning issues to be decided and
`
`questions answered in this case;
`
`B.
`
`To enable the court to determine whether any prospective juror should be
`
`excused; and
`
`C.
`
`To enable counsel for the parties to exercise their individual judgment with
`
`respect to peremptory challenges, that is, challenges for which no reason need be
`
`given by counsel.
`
`Now my Courtroom Deputy will administer the oath because it is important that you
`
`answer these questions truthfully.
`
`(To Deputy: Please swear the panel.)
`
`You all have a printed copy of these questions and a pen. If your answer is “yes” to any
`
`question, please take your pen and circle the number of that question. After I finish reading all
`
`the questions, you may be asked whether you answered “yes” to any questions. Once I have
`
`completed all of the questions, I may ask some of you who answered “yes” to one or more
`
`questions to come back to the jury room to discuss your answers with the lawyers and me.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 17615
`
`This is a timed trial, which means that each side has a set amount of hours in which to
`
`present their case. The presentation of evidence in this case is expected to be completed either
`
`on this Friday, March 1, or next Monday, March 4; jury deliberations will follow, and we expect
`
`to be completed with the case by Monday, March 4 or Tuesday, March 5.
`
`The schedule that I expect to keep over the days of evidence presentation will include a
`
`morning break of 15 minutes, a lunch break of at least a half an hour, and an afternoon break of
`
`15 minutes. Trial will start each day at 9:00 a.m. and will finish no later than 5:00 p.m. each day.
`
`1.
`
`Does the schedule I have just mentioned present a special problem to any of you?
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
`
`Next, I will ask you about the people involved in this case so you can tell me if anyone
`
`here has any prior dealings with anyone involved in the case.
`
`2.
`
`The Plaintiffs in this case are Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and MES, Inc.
`
`Together they will sometimes be referred to as ME2C. Have you or any of your
`
`close family members had any dealings with either of the Plaintiffs?
`
`3.
`
`ME2C is represented by the Devlin Law Firm and the Caldwell Cassady Curry
`
`Law Firm. The individual lawyers involved are: James Lennon, Peter Mazur,
`
`Bradley Caldwell, Justin Nemunaitis, Warren McCarty, Daniel Pearson, Aisha
`
`Haley, Adrienne Dellinger, and Richard Cochrane. Do any of you know, or are
`
`you acquainted with, these lawyers or any other lawyer or employees in their
`
`offices?
`
`4.
`
`Do any of you have pending business, or have you had business, with those law
`
`firms or with ME2C?
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 17616
`
`5.
`
`There are 12 separate Defendants and/or Counterclaim-Plaintiffs in this case. I’ll
`
`refer to these parties as “Defendants” here. The Defendants are represented by the
`
`same attorneys. I will tell you the names of these Defendants, and the counsel for
`
`them:
`
`CERT Operations II LLC
`
`CERT Operations IV LLC
`
`CERT Operations V LLC
`
`CERT Operations RCB LLC
`
`Senescence Energy Products LLC
`
`Bascobert (A) Holdings LLC
`
`Buffington Partners LLC
`
`Larkwood Energy LLC
`
`Rutledge Products LLC
`
`Cottbus Associates LLC
`
`Springhill Resources LLC
`
`Marquis Industrial Company LLC
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`6.
`
`Have any of you had dealings with these entities? Also, these Defendants are
`
`represented by the law firms of Morris James LLP and Bradley Arant Boult
`
`Cummings LLP. The individual lawyers involved are Kenneth Dorsney, Cortlan
`
`Hitch, Paul Sykes, and Jeff Dyess. Do any of you know, or are you acquainted
`
`with, these lawyers or any other lawyer or employees in their offices? Do any of
`
`you have pending business, or have you had business, with those law firms?
`
`During the course of the trial, you may hear references to companies that are not parties
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 17617
`
`to the case including, but not limited to:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`7.
`
`Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., and
`
`Chem-Mod LLC
`
`Have any of you, or your close family members, had any dealings with any of
`
`those companies, or any people from those companies? Or have you or your
`
`close family members had any dealings with any company that operates or
`
`provides services to a coal-fired power plant?
`
`III. WITNESSES
`
`I am going to read a list of witnesses who may be called during this trial.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Rick MacPherson
`
`Jim Trettel
`
`John Pavlish
`
`Michael Holmes
`
`Edwin Olson
`
`Philip Green
`
`Philip O’Keefe
`
`Catharine Lawton
`
`Stephen Niksa
`
`Connie Senior
`
`Sally Batanian
`
`Vince Inendino
`
`Katherine Panczak
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 17618
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Christopher Berkimer
`
`George Kotch
`
`Vincent Verschueren
`
`Leah Schaatt
`
`Jeff Green
`
`Thomas Erickson
`
`Jay Gunderson
`
`William Whitney
`
`George Kotch
`
`James Landreth
`
`Jon Finlinson
`
`Daniel Carro
`
`Larry Kuennen
`
`8.
`
`Do you know, or are you acquainted with any of the people that I just named?
`
`IV. NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`I will now tell you briefly about this case and the parties involved. ME2C has sued each
`
`of the named Defendants for patent infringement. For now, I will simply tell you that this case is
`
`an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States. ME2C owns several
`
`United States patents that relate to methods for capturing mercury from the emissions of coal-
`
`fired power plants. ME2C has accused Defendants of indirectly infringing those patents by
`
`selling a product known as refined coal, and by inducing the power plant customers that purchase
`
`its refined coal to practice ME2C’s patented methods without permission. If the jury in this case
`
`finds a Defendant to have indirectly infringed, then ME2C is seeking money damages from that
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 17619
`
`Defendant of $1.00 for each ton of refined coal that the Defendant sold to an infringing power
`
`plant that used the refined coal to infringe the patent.
`
`Each Defendant denies infringement in this case and contends that ME2C is not entitled
`
`to damages. Each Defendant also contends that ME2C’s patents are invalid.
`
`During this trial, if you are selected for the jury, you will be asked to make decisions to
`
`resolve these disputes between ME2C and the Defendants. I have briefly described the positions
`
`and contentions of the parties in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Do any of you know anything about this dispute other than what I just described?
`
`Have you, any members of your family, or close friends ever been involved in a
`
`patent infringement case or involved in a controversy over a patent?
`
`11.
`
`This case is specifically about patent infringement. Does anyone have any beliefs
`
`or views about patent infringement lawsuits generally?
`
`TECHNOLOGY
`
`12.
`
`I mentioned before that the technology in this case deals with a way of capturing
`
`mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Was anyone here familiar with
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`that type of technology before today?
`
`Has anyone here ever worked at a power plant?
`
`Has anyone here ever worked with pollution control technology?
`
`Has anyone here ever worked in the chemicals industry?
`
`Has anyone here ever worked for an engineering firm or as a process engineer?
`
`The technology in this case involves power plants that combust coal to generate
`
`electricity. Does anybody here have strong feelings about coal to the point that
`
`you could not follow the law in deciding the case?
`
`7
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 671 Filed 02/15/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 17620
`
`VI.
`
`BURDENS OF PROOF AND THE LAW
`
`One of your duties as jurors is to take the law as I instruct you, apply it to the facts, and
`
`decide which party should prevail on the issues presented. It is my responsibility to decide
`
`which rules of law apply to the case and to instruct you on what legal principles to follow. In
`
`addition, because this is a patent case, I will also provide you definitions of what certain terms of
`
`the patents mean. These are called the Court’s claim constructions. You are bound by your oath
`
`as jurors to follow the Court’s instructions and its claim constructions, even if you personally
`
`disagree with them.
`
`18. Would anyone be unable to follow my instructions in this case if you personally
`
`disagreed with the instructions provided by the Court?
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`
`19.
`
`Is there anything else, including something you have remembered in connection
`
`with one of the earlier questions, or that any of you think may prevent you from
`
`rendering a fair and impartial verdict based solely upon the evidence and my
`
`instructions as to the law?
`
`8
`
`
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
