United States District Court, D. Minnesota
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., and BRP U.S. INC., Plaintiffs,
ARCTIC CAT INC., and ARCTIC CAT SALES INC., Defendants.
C. Marcus, LOCKE LORD LLP, Three World Financial Center, New
York, NY 10281, and Kevin D. Conneely and Ruth A. Rivard,
STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite
2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for plaintiffs.
A. Myers, Diane L. Peterson, and Niall A. MacLeod, KUTAK ROCK
LLP, 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN
55402, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN
R. TUNHEIM Chief Judge United States District Court
Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. and BRP U.S. Inc.
(collectively “BRP”) brought this action against
Arctic Cat Inc. and Arctic Cat Sales Inc. (collectively
“Arctic Cat”), alleging patent infringement.
Trial beings Monday, November 13, 2017. This order addresses
the parties' motions in limine.
alleges that Arctic Cat infringes two of its patents: U.S.
Patent No. 7, 124, 847 (“the '847 patent”)
and U.S. Patent No. 7, 213, 669 (“the '669
patent”). The Court granted BRP summary judgment of
infringement with respect to the '847 patent. (Mem. Op.
& Order, Dec. 29, 2016, Docket No. 781.) The issues for
trial include whether Arctic Cat infringes the '669
patent, whether Arctic Cat's infringement was willful,
whether the asserted claims of BRP's patents are invalid
or unenforceable, and damages.
BRP'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
BRP's Motion in Limine No. 1
seeks to preclude Arctic Cat from introducing anything at
trial that was not explicitly and specifically identified in
Arctic Cat's responses to BRP's interrogatories under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Interrogatory No. 23 asked Arctic Cat to detail the chain of
custody and dates of manufacture, sale, and public use for
any prior-art snowmobile that Arctic Cat intends to rely on
at trial for its invalidity defense. Arctic Cat failed to
provide any response to Interrogatory No. 23 for seven
snowmobiles that Arctic Cat listed on its Prior
Art/Invalidity Statement. Arctic Cat may therefore not introduce
at trial any of those seven snowmobiles to show that any
claims of the patent-in-suit are invalid. The Court will
grant BRP's motion in this respect and deny it in all
BRP's Motion in Limine No. 2
seeks to exclude Arctic Cat's allegedly improper evidence
and arguments based on the assertion of attorney-client
privilege. To rebut BRP's willfulness allegations, Arctic
Cat has made a limited waiver of attorney-client privilege
with respect to its invalidity opinions. Because Arctic Cat
resisted discovery with respect to noninfringement opinions,
the Court will grant BRP's motion. Arctic Cat may,
however, introduce nonprivileged information, such as the
fact that certain individuals attended meetings or were
involved in certain processes.
BRP's Motion in Limine No. 3
seeks to preclude Arctic Cat from presenting evidence,
including expert testimony, that contravenes the court's
rulings. BRP's Memorandum in Support of its Motion in
Liminie No. 3 contained six subsections. The Court will grant
in part and deny in part BRP's motion.
respect to Sections II.A, II.B, and II.D. of BRP's
motion, witnesses - including BRP's witnesses - may not
offer testimony that is contrary to the Court's prior
orders. With respect to indefiniteness, Arctic Cat may
present evidence on factual disputes. With respect to Section
II.E. of BRP's motion and consistent with the Court's
prior orders, Arctic Cat may not use prior art not disclosed
in its Prior Art Statements to substantively support its
invalidity positions. Arctic Cat may, however, use such prior
art as background or generalized information. The Court will
grant BRP's motion with respect to Section II.F. of
BRP's motion and deny it with respect to Section II.C. of
BRP's Motion in Limine No. 4
moves to preclude Arctic Cat from arguing and presenting
evidence, including expert testimony, that the '847
patent “upper column” claim limitation is
admitted prior art. BRP previously moved to strike this
argument from Arctic Cat's expert report, but the Court
denied BRP's motion to strike. Thus, the Court will deny
BRP's Motion in Limine No. 5
seeks to admit - and Arctic Cat seeks to exclude - Arctic
Cat's sales of post model year (“MY”) 2013
snowmobiles because those snowmobiles are not part of
BRP's infringement case. BRP argues that Arctic ...