Free Objections - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 218

Filed 10/16/2006

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. ERCHONIA MEDICAL, INC., an Arizona corporation, ERCHONIA MEDICAL LASERS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, ERCHONIA PATENT HOLDINGS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Defendants.

ERCHONIA PATENT HOLDINGS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, ERCHONIA MEDICAL, INC., an Arizona corporation, Counter-Claimants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC., a Colorado corporation, ROBERT E. MORONEY, an individual, ROBERT E. MORONEY, L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability company, MIKI SMITH, an individual, KMS MARKETING, INC., a Colorado corporation, and STARGATE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation, Counter-Defendants and Third-Party Defendants.

AMD PARTIES' OBJECTIONS TO ERCHONIA'S SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

Pursuant to the Court's September 6, 2006 Order, Plaintiff A Major Difference, Inc., and Counter-Defendants and Third-Party Defendants A Major Difference, Inc., Robert E. Moroney,

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 218

Filed 10/16/2006

Page 2 of 5

Robert E. Moroney, L.L.C., Miki Smith, KMS Marketing, Inc. and Stargate International, Inc. (collectively "AMD Parties") respectfully submit their Objections to Defendants Erchonia Medical, Inc., Erchonia Medical Lasers, L.L.C., and Erchonia Patent Holdings, L.L.C.'s (collectively "Erchonia") Proposed Special Jury Instructions and Special Verdict Form. I. AMD Parties' Objections To Erchonia's Special Jury Instructions And Special Verdict Form A. Objection To Erchonia's Jury Instruction Entitled "Doctrine of Equivalents"

The AMD Parties object to Erchonia's "Doctrine of Equivalents" instruction because Erchonia has no evidence supporting its claim of patent infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Additionally, the AMD Parties have filed a motion in limine to preclude any introduction of arguments of patent infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents. (See AMD Parties' Motion in limine to Preclude Arguments Relating to Infringement Base on the Doctrine of Equivalents.) B. Objection to Erchonia's Jury Instruction Entitled "Issues to be Determined"

The AMD Parties object to Erchonia's "Issues to Be Determined" instruction as being duplicative of the Parties Stipulated Jury Instructions. C. Objection To Erchonia's Jury Instruction Entitled "Lost Profits"

The AMD Parties object to Erchonia's "Lost Profits" instruction because Erchonia has no evidence supporting its claim for lost profits. Additionally, the AMD Parties have presented a Motion under Fed. R. Evid. 702 to Exclude Expert Testimony relating to Lost Profits. (See Joint 2

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 218

Filed 10/16/2006

Page 3 of 5

Parties' Motion Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 Regarding the Admissibility of Certain Opinions of Mark W. Pedigo.) D. Objection to Erchonia's Jury Instruction Entitled "Patent Claims to be Considered Separately"

The AMD Parties object to Erchonia's "Patent Claims to be Considered Separately" instruction as being duplicative of the Parties Stipulated Jury Instructions. E. Objection to Erchonia's Jury Instruction Entitled "Relation Back to Patent Application to Date of Provisional Application"

The AMD Parties object to Erchonia's "Relation Back to Patent Application to Date of Provisional Application" instruction because there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the necessity of this instruction. F. Objection to Erchonia's Jury Instruction Entitled "Carrying Instruction" And Special Verdict Form

The AMD Parties object to Erchonia's Carrying Instruction as being overly burdensome and duplicative of Erchonia's Special Verdict Form. The AMD Parties object to Erchonia's Special Verdict Form as being overly burdensome and complicated. The AMD Parties have

contemporaneously submitted a competing Special Verdict Form containing the same substantive information, but in a less complex format.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 218

Filed 10/16/2006

Page 4 of 5

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 16, 2006

By:

s/ Paul S. Cha Robert R. Brunelli [email protected] Benjamin B. Lieb [email protected] Scott R. Bialecki [email protected] Paul S. Cha [email protected] SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202-5141 Telephone: 303-863-9700 Facsimile: 303-863-0223 E-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR A MAJOR DIFFERENCE, INC., ROBERT E. MORONEY, ROBERT E. MORONEY, L.L.C., MIKI SMITH, KMS MARKETING, INC. AND STARGATE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

4

Case 1:04-cv-01769-MSK-CBS

Document 218

Filed 10/16/2006

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this October 16, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Richard L. Gabriel, Esq. [email protected] Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100 Denver, Colorado 80203, John R. Mann, Esq. [email protected] Charles R. Ledbetter, Esq. [email protected] Valerie A. Garcia, Esq. [email protected] Kennedy Childs & Fogg, P.C. 1050 17th Street, Suite 2500 Denver, Colorado 80265 Ira M. Schwartz, Esq. [email protected] DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy, P.C. 7310 N. 16th Street, Suite 330 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 s/ Kristin M. Heil Kristin M. Heil Assistant to Paul S. Cha SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202-5141 Telephone: 303-863-9700 Facsimile: 303-863-0223 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]
J:\4888\-10\PLEADINGS\AMDs Objections to Erchonias Special Jury Instructions.wpd

5