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.

Liqwd, Inc. v. L'oreal USA, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

July 2, 2019

LIQWD, INC. and OLAPLEX LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
L'ORÉAL USA, INC., L'ORÉAL USA PRODUCTS, INC., L'ORÉAL USA S/D, INC., and REDKENS 5TH AVENUE, NYC, L.L.C., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on defendants' motions in limine, D.I. 805-2:

1. Defendants' motion in limine No. 1 to exclude evidence of net worth, D.I. 805-2 at 605;
2. Defendants' motion in limine No. 2 to preclude reference to any findings and conclusions made in connection with plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction, D.I. 805-2 at 620;
3. Defendants' motion in limine No. 3 to preclude reference to defendants' participation in and dismissal from this proceeding and the U.K. litigation decision, D.I. 805-2 at 635;
4. Defendants' motion in limine No. 4 to exclude evidence of or reference to potential employment of Craig Hawker and Eric Pressly, D.I. 805-2 at 656;
5. Defendants' motion in limine No. 5 to preclude reference to Paul Hastings LLP as former counsel to Olaplex, D.I. 802-2 at 697.

         DISCUSSION

         1. Defendants' motion in limine No. 1 to exclude evidence of net worth, D.I. 805-2 at 605

         Defendants move this Court to exclude any evidence of their net worth, and in particular, financial condition, profitability, and/or net worth of any defendant or their parent entity. Defendants contend that courts hold such information inadmissible unless evidence shows that punitive damages are appropriate. Johnson v. Fed. Express Corp., 2014 WL 805995, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2014). See also Waters v. Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., 400 F.Supp.2d 808, 813 (E.D. Pa. 2005). Plaintiff argues that both the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, § 2003(b), and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C), authorize recovery of punitive damages; and they argue that the evidence of net worth is relevant and highly probative in this case.

         The Court agrees that any evidence as to defendants' overall financial status is irrelevant and is potentially prejudicial. However, evidence as to profits relating to the allegations in this case are admissible and relevant. If during trial conduct that would support punitive damages becomes apparent, the Court will entertain a motion at that time to permit such testimony. Further, if defendants raise issues that go to their financial ability and resources to develop the accused products, or their ability to pay chemists, the plaintiffs may likewise move to permit evidence of financial status.

         2. Defendants' motion in limine No. 2 to preclude reference to any findings and conclusions made in connection with plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction, D.I. 805-2 at 620

         Defendants contend that any findings or conclusions made by the magistrate Judge in this Court or the Federal Circuit are irrelevant to the issues decided by the jury. In the alternative, defendants contend that they should be excluded as substantially prejudicial. See Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp., 2009 WL 3400989, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2009); Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharm. USA Inc., 2010 WL 11470982, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2010); King Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 2010 WL 4789950, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2010). “[A]ll findings of fact and conclusions of law at the preliminary injunction stage are subject to change upon the ultimate trial on the merits, ” and are not binding on the trial court. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, 237 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

         Plaintiffs oppose this motion in limine, arguing that certain preliminary injunction findings are probative and admissible for proper purposes. This is relevant to the issue of active infringement, the issue of willfulness, and this relates to the dates of infringement, argue plaintiffs. Also, plaintiffs contend that evidence of preliminary injunction decisions may be relevant for impeachment purposes at trial. Further, contends plaintiffs, several of defendants' experts relied on preliminary injunction materials and decisions to form their opinions. See, e.g., D.I. 719, Ex. 1, at ¶¶ 25, 29 (Dr. Benny Freeman's Opening Report); D.I. 720, Ex. 4, at ¶ 14 & n.2 (Rhonda Harper's Report); D.I. 720, Ex. 6, at Ex. B, Items 7, 12 ...


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.