TB Holding Company LLC v. J&S Siding Company, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Idaho addresses several evidentiary and trial-management issues in a patent infringement action involving three TB Holding patents. The court takes judicial notice of the patents, permits TB Holding to present reasonable-royalty evidence without expert testimony, and conditionally allows admission of sublicense agreement signature pages. The court excludes evidence of the purchase price of a log attachment at that stage, permits renewal of that request after TB Holding’s case-in-chief, and allows both parties to call Ryan Reed-Baum as a witness.

Holdings

1. The court may take judicial notice of publicly accessible patents whose accuracy is not reasonably questioned, and certified copies from the Patent and Trademark Office were not required here. The three patents were judicially noticed and the objection to their admission was overruled.
2. TB Holding was not required to disclose a new damages theory after exclusion of its damages expert and could present evidence concerning reasonable royalties for its utility patents without expert testimony.
3. A template agreement, executed signature pages, and testimony that the template was standard and unmodified are sufficient under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) to authenticate the signature pages, subject to the witness's testimony.
4. Evidence of the $8,950 price J&S paid for the log attachment was excluded as more prejudicial than probative for determining a reasonable royalty, although J&S could renew the request after TB Holding's case-in-chief with a detailed proffer.
5. J&S could call Ryan Reed-Baum as a live witness, and TB Holding could also call him in its case-in-chief. J&S could exceed the scope of TB Holding's direct examination on cross-examination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could take judicial notice of the three patents and admit them without certified, self-authenticating copies from the Patent and Trademark Office.
2. Whether exclusion of TB Holding's damages expert required disclosure of a new damages theory or precluded TB Holding from presenting reasonable-royalty evidence without expert testimony.
3. Whether signature pages from sublicense agreements, together with a standard form agreement and testimony concerning uniform, unmodified terms, were sufficiently authenticated for admission.
4. Whether evidence of J&S's $8,950 purchase price for a log attachment was relevant and admissible to establish a reasonable royalty.
5. Whether J&S and TB Holding could call Ryan Reed-Baum as a live trial witness.

Disposition

other