As one Delaware jurist used to ask, how many times do you patent lawyers want me to try your case? It was a rhetorical inquiry, since the judge had the power to keep it to one, even though the lawyers might prefer 3 trials: claim construction, liability and damages (plus maybe a
The new school of patentees counsel tend to prefer one trial, hit hard and quick on the big issues, then shift the burden to infringers counsel to bore the jurors with proving all of the details.
That approach went under reconsideration after reading St. Clair IPC v. Fuji Photo, 1:03-CV-231 (D. Del.
The whoops factor (scarred litigator-speak) was that someone in the courtroom must have thought having two trials was the better option, and it wasnt St. Clair. In this regard, the Court notes that St. Clair opposed the bifurcation of liability and damages.
There are plenty of cases, pro and con, on admitting evidence of royalty rates in licenses obtained after litigation was threatened or underway. It can be held out, especially where those are the only licenses. It can come in with a cautionary instruction to the jury, or it can just come in after cross-exam and closing argument explain the differences between arms-length and arm-twisting.
In that perfect world of the engineering mind, each issue would get full treatment, and if that takes separate trials, then OK. But, the litigators mindset is to get to verdict as soon as possible, without being unduly rushed. For that, one trial plainly is preferable. If a choice between bifurcation, trifurcation or singularity carries a risk of my evidence being excluded from the single trial, but admitted in one of separate trials, then tell me that – before any trial, and before I decide on bifurcation.