SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. v. United States
1:17-cv-00825-EMR
| Fed. Cl. | Mar 7, 2025Background
- Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) sued the United States for patent infringement related to night vision goggle systems allegedly using SAIC’s patented technology.
- The only patent claims still at issue are specific claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,229,230 ('230 Patent), after other patents and claims were dismissed on stipulation and summary judgment.
- Multiple parties, including Microsoft Corporation and L3 Technologies, intervened as defendants. The case has involved extensive discovery, several summary judgment rulings, and a complex procedural history.
- The current opinion addresses a set of 14 motions in limine (MILs) from both sides, seeking to exclude or manage specific evidence and testimony before trial.
- The Court’s rulings provide guidance on the admissibility of lay and expert testimony, hearsay, use of certain technical materials, and various evidentiary objections, setting the parameters for the upcoming bench trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Desert's Edge Materials | Not relevant as non-prior art; any probative value outweighed by prejudice/confusion | Relevant to show state of the art and skill level at time of invention, not used to show anticipation | May be used to show state of the art, not as prior art; objection may be renewed at trial |
| Dr. Loveland's Testimony | Should be excluded if expert or based on privileged info; improper opinion on skill in the art | Fact-based, based on personal experience; no expert opinion or privilege at issue | May testify on personal knowledge of the art, no expert opinions or privileged info allowed; may object if line crossed at trial |
| Exclusion of Equinox Materials/Testimony | Equinox isn’t prior art; insufficient evidence; testimony would be improper/uncorroborated | Evidence will show Equinox was conceived/offered for sale before SAIC’s date; witness is qualified | Too fact-intensive for exclusion now; Equinox materials and testimony permissible based on personal knowledge—objections can be renewed at trial |
| Demonstration of Accused Systems | Should be precluded due to non-disclosure and risk of confusion | Not required to disclose physical device earlier; demonstration would aid court’s understanding | Permitted as illustrative aid, not evidence; no Rule 37 or FRE 403 bar in bench trial |
| Defendants’ MIL re: "Overlay" and "Replace" Terms | Terms not mutually exclusive; want to argue overlap for infringement case | Plaintiff’s prior judicial admission bars current argument (judicial estoppel) | Judicial estoppel does not apply; Plaintiff not precluded from arguing overlap |
| Experts’ Testimony Beyond Reports | Dr. Bajaj’s testimony is within scope, can elaborate per Rule 26 | Any opinion outside report or inconsistent with claim construction should be precluded | Testimony may elaborate within scope of report and claim construction; specific objections can be raised at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (Obviousness analysis includes consideration of the state of the art and the knowledge of persons skilled in the art)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Establishes liberal relevancy standard and guides expert testimony admissibility)
- Seaboard Lumber Co. v. United States, 308 F.3d 1283 (Bench trials are less concerned with prejudice or confusion under Rule 403)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (Admissibility of evidence and burden of proof standards)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (Standards for application of judicial estoppel)
- Centricut, LLC v. Esab Grp., Inc., 390 F.3d 1361 (Expert testimony not per se required for complex technology where lay witness is competent)
- Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Expert testimony on obviousness and state of the art)