Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Visteon Global Technologies, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 20, 2016

VISTEON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND VISTEON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.

          David R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge.

         OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 375), (2) DENYING VISTEON'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (ECF NO. 250); (3) DENYING VISTEON'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE ANY ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY CONCERNING GARMIN'S 35 U.S.C. § 112 DEFENSES AGAINST THE ‘060 PATENT THAT ARE DIRECTED TO THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS (ECF NO. 251); (4) SUSTAINING VISTEON'S OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO GARMIN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 (ECF NO. 383); AND (5) DENYING GARMIN'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE DR. JOEL STECKEL'S USE SURVEY REGARDING THE ‘892 PATENT (ECF NO. 264)

          PAUL D. BORMAN DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiffs Visteon Global Technologies, Inc. and Visteon Technologies, LLC's (“Visteon”) and Defendant Garmin International, Inc.'s (“Garmin”), have filed numerous motions in limine in this patent infringement action, including several Daubert[1] motions seeking to exclude the opinions of the opposing party's experts. On June 14, 2016, the Court referred the following three in limine motions to Special Master Gaynell C. Methvin, who has served in the role of Special Master in this case since its inception on the parties' mutual consent: (1) Visteon's Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Any Argument, Evidence or Testimony That is Contrary to the Court's Claim Construction (ECF No. 250); (2) Visteon's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Any Argument, Evidence or Testimony Concerning Garmin's 35 U.S.C. § 112 Defenses Against the ‘060 Patent That Are Directed to The Accused Products (ECF No. 251); and (3) Garmin's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Dr. Joel Steckel's Use Survey Regarding the ‘892 Patent (ECF No. 264). (ECF No. 371, Order of Reference to Special Master.)

         On August 10, 2016, the Special Master issued his Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 375.) Visteon filed an Objection to that portion of the Special Master's Report relating to Garmin's motion to exclude Dr. Joel Steckel's Use Survey Regarding the ‘892 Patent. (ECF No. 383, Plaintiff Visteon's Objections to the Special Master's Report and Recommendations Relating to Garmin's Motion in Limine No. 5.) Garmin has filed a Response to Visteon's Objections. (ECF No. 385.) No other objections have been filed by either party to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation.

         Having reviewed de novo, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(f), the Special Master's findings of fact and conclusions of law to which objection has been made, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Special Master's Recommendation to DENY Visteon's Motion in Limine No. 4 and DENIES that motion (ECF No. 250); (2) ADOPTS the Special Master's recommendation to DENY Visteon's Motion in Limine No. 5 and DENIES that motion (ECF No. 251); (3) SUSTAINS Visteon's Objection to the Special Master's Report and Recommendation Relating to Garmin's Motion in Limine No. 5 and DENIES that motion. (ECF No. 264).

         II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         A. Review of the Special Master's Report and Recommendation

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 sets forth the appropriate standard of review for a district court in reviewing findings of fact and conclusions of law made or recommended by a Special Master. Rule 53(f)(3) provides as follows:

Reviewing Factual Findings. The court must decide de novo all objections to findings of fact made or recommended by a master, unless the parties, with the court's approval, stipulate that:
(A) the findings will be reviewed for clear error; or
(B) the findings of a master appointed under Rule 53(a)(1)(A) or (C) will be final.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(4) provides as follows:

Reviewing Legal Conclusions. The court must decide de novo all objections to conclusions of law made or recommended by a master.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(5) provides as follows:

Reviewing Procedural Matters. Unless the appointing order establishes a different standard of review, the court may set aside a master's ruling on a procedural matter ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.