Last month, Federal Circuit Judge Taranto, writing for a unanimous panel, laid out a complete road map to the admissibility of settlements in patent infringement litigation. That detailed opinion,\u00a0Prism v. Sprint<\/i>, is likely to put an end to the seven-year unsettled period that has followed the Federal Circuit decision in\u00a0ResONet v. \u00a0Lansa.\u00a0<\/i>That 2010 opinion upset case law reaching back to 1889 that rarely deemed settlement agreements admissible in patent infringement litigation.\u00a0ResONet\u00a0<\/i>asserted, to the contrary, that “the\u00a0most<\/i> reliable license in this record arose out of litigation.” Since then, district courts have tended to follow their own inclinations on the issue, with some assessing the admissibility of settlements in a fact-dependent case-by-case analysis, and others remaining more inclined to exclude settlements.<\/p>\n
In\u00a0Prism,\u00a0<\/i>the Federal Circuit lays out a detailed scheme for the balancing act required under Rule 403, whereby a district court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed” by such dangers as unfair prejudice and misleading the jury. The opinion addresses such issues as:<\/p>\n Our panel, which includes two litigators and a damages expert, will discuss how to best leverage\u00a0Prism<\/i> to keep settlements both in and out of evidence. They will also analyze Sprint’s recent filing of a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc and discuss possible outcomes.<\/p>\n Speakers:<\/p>\n Last month, Federal Circuit Judge Taranto, writing for a unanimous […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n