Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 340 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MCKESSON INFORMATION )
SOLUTIONS LLC, )
Plaintiff, g
v. ; Civ. No. 04-1258-SLR
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., §
Defendant. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 17m day of April, 2006, having reviewed
the deposition designations produced for my examination, and
having reviewed the arguments and rulings made pretrial regarding
the permissible scope of fact testimony vis a vis the
functionality of the accused products and infringement;
IT IS ORDERED generally that all references to the ‘I64
patent and its claims will be stricken from the admitted
testimony. I do not believe it is appropriate for a fact witness
with no prior knowledge of the patent to be answering a question
such as: “Does the Facets System operate to perform the steps
described in Claim I?" However, to the extent there are
remaining questions as to whether the accused product performs a

Case 1:O4—cv-01258-SLR Document 340 Filed O4/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
certain function or a certain step, where the language at issue
has not been construed and the witness is a person of ordinary
skill in the art, the deposition may be viewed by the jury. Of
course, no questions may be asked concerning a “predetermined
database", as that phrase (whether mentioned in the preamble to a
claim or as a claim limitation) was construed by the court and
these fact witnesses did not have the information necessary to
answer any questions in this regard.l For example, with respect
to Mr. Bellomo’s deposition, the objections on pages 86-88 are
sustained; the objections on pages 90-91 are overruled; the
objections on page 96 are sustained as to lines 8-9 and lines 14-
23 and overruled with respect to the remaining lines; the
objections on pages 97, 99 and 101, line 1 are overruled; the
objections on pages 101 line 2 through 113, line 4 are sustained;
the objections on page 113 line 5 to page 118 are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all testimony relating to
plaintiff’s exhibit 5 (the 1989 letter from Ms. Radosevich at HPR
to Erisco) shall be stricken.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining objections (and any
objections to the redesignated depositions) shall be discussed
tomorrow morning starting at 8:30 a.m., for those depositions
going forward tomorrow. Counsel for plaintiff shall email the
lUpon further reflection, this includes Mr. Jones' testimony
at pages 21 to 22 line 2 and at pages 23 line 3 through line 10
and at page 24 lines 11 through line 16.
2

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 340 Filed O4/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
court and opposing counsel as soon as possible as to which
depositions shall be going forward and in what order. Under the
unusual circumstances of this case, the court will consider a
request by McKesson to require the presence of the 30(b)(6)
witnesses either live, through video conferencing or
redeposition.
United Stgges District Judge
3