Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 1 of 10 PagelD #:
`24119
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MAGNOLIA MEDICAL
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
`V. C.A. No. 24-1124 (CFC)
`
`KURIN, INC,,
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
`
`N N N N N N N N N N N
`
`JOINT PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`(PHASE 2 — VERSION A)
`
`TO BE USED IF BOTH PARTIES PREVAIL ON THEIR INFRINGEMENT
`CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 2 of 10 PagelD #:
`
`24120
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`1. INTRODUGCTION ...oooooeeoeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeseeeseeseeeeeesseeess s seessessesseeessseeeesseeos 3
`
`2. [DISPUTED] OVERVIEW OF THE CASE AND BURDEN OF
`PROOF .....ooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e seeeeee e eees e e e s eee s ee s ess s ees e eeeseeeess s seeeee 4
`3. CONDUCT OF THE JURY ..oovooireeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseseeeeeseeeesseeeeseseeseseseeeeseee 7
`4. [DISPUTED] OUTLINE OF THE TRIAL ....ccooovveeeireeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeeeeeeeseeeee 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 3 of 10 PagelD #:
`24121
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`Now that you have rendered your verdict in the first phase of the case, we will
`proceed to the second phase of the case. All of the general rules and guidance that I
`
`gave you at the beginning of the first phase apply equally to this phase.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 4 of 10 PagelD #:
`
`2.
`
`24122
`
`[DISPUTED] OVERVIEW OF THE CASE AND BURDEN OF PROOF
`In this phase, you will need to decide [MAGNOLIA’S PROPOSAL:
`
`whether Kurin willfully infringed Magnolia’s #081 and #863 patents and]' any
`
`monetary damages to be awarded to Magnolia and Kurin to compensate them for the
`
`other side’s infringement. During this phase, you must not revisit or reconsider your
`
`prior verdict.
`
`1
`
`Magnolia’s Position: Magnolia proposes instructing the jury on willful
`infringement in the same phase as damages, as the Court did in the prior case
`between Magnolia and Kurin. Magnolia Medical Techs. v. Kurin Inc., C.A. No.
`19-97-CFC (D. Del.), Preliminary Jury Instructions (D.I. 449 at 5) (“In this phase,
`Magnolia contends that Kurin’s infringement was willful. ... [Y]ou will also need
`to decide the amount of money damages to be awarded to Magnolia to
`compensate it for the infringement.”). Kurin does not cite any authority or
`precedent separating willfulness from damages. It would waste judicial, jury and
`party resources to trifurcate proceedings into three separate, successive trials.
`Finally, Kurin’s one-sided description of willfulness proceedings at the previous
`trial 1s inapposite because the evidence that will prove Kurin’s willfulness here
`is different.
`
`Kurin’s Position: Willfulness should be tried in its own separate phase, for
`virtually the same reasons why it is not being tried alongside infringement.
`Additionally, willfulness should be tried in its own separate phase because
`Magnolia only asserts willfulness for two of its asserted patents, which may
`confuse the jury. Further, allowing Magnolia to present its willfulness case
`alongside its damages case may confuse the jury with regard to damages. The
`prejudice is even greater if Magnolia fails to prove its willfulness case. Magnolia
`misstates the Court’s ruling on Magnolia’s willfulness claim in the prior case;
`following the Court’s advice about the prejudice that could occur with presenting
`its willfulness claim alongside its damages case, Magnolia dropped its willfulness
`claim, but not until after preliminary instructions and opening statements. See
`Magnolia Medical Techs. v. Kurin Inc., C.A. No. 19-97-CFC (D. Del.) (D.I. 506
`at 3-9) (Day 3 Trial Transcript). Kurin further states that the issue of willful
`infringement should not be presented to the jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 5 of 10 PagelD #:
`24123
`
`[MAGNOLIA’S PROPOSAL: Each party has the burden of proving the
`damages that the other side owes, and Magnolia has the burden of proving that
`Kurin’s infringement was willful. The burden of proof is proof by a preponderance
`of the evidence.] [KURIN’S PROPOSAL: Both parties have the burden of proving
`damages by a preponderance of the evidence. That means the party who bears the
`burden of proof must prove to you, in light of all the evidence, that what it claims is
`more likely true than not.]> To say it differently: if you were to put the evidence
`favorable to one party and the evidence favorable to the other party on opposites of
`a scale, the party that bears the burden of proof would have to make the scale tip
`slightly on its side. If the party that bears the burden of proof fails to meet this
`
`burden, the verdict must be for the other side.
`
`AUTHORITY
`
`Magnolia Med. Techs. v. Kurin, C.A. No. 19-97-CFC (D. Del), Preliminary Jury
`Instructions (D.1. 447, 449); Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics,
`
`2 Magnolia’s Position: Magnolia proposes its instruction for the reasons stated in
`
`n.1, supra. Magnolia also proposes to instruct the jury on the burden of proof for
`willful infringement, as the Court did in the prior case between Magnolia and
`Kurin. Magnolia Medical Techs. v. Kurin Inc., C.A. No. 19-97-CFC (D. Del.),
`Preliminary Jury Instructions (D.I. 449 at 5). Magnolia also proposes this
`instruction for purposes of clarity.
`
`Kurin’s Position: See supra n.1. Kurin’s proposal better clarifies the burden of
`proof.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 6 of 10 PagelD #:
`24124
`
`Inc., C.A. No. 21-1015-JLH (D. Del.), Preliminary Jury Instructions (D.I. 682, 697);
`Third Circuit Model Jury Instruction Nos. 1.10 and 1.11 (2024).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 7 of 10 PagelD #:
`24125
`
`3. CONDUCT OF THE JURY
`
`I will now remind you about your conduct as jurors. All of the instructions I
`gave you at the beginning of Phase 1 apply equally to this phase. So you must not
`talk about the case with each other or with anyone until you retire to deliberate. And
`you must not read or listen to anything about this case that is not admitted into
`evidence.
`
`Again, do not reach any conclusions on the claims or defenses until all of the
`evidence is in. Keep an open mind until you start your deliberations at the end of
`
`the case.
`
`AUTHORITY
`
`Magnolia Med. Techs. v. Kurin, C.A. No. 19-97-CFC (D. Del), Preliminary Jury
`Instructions (D.I. 447, 449); Third Circuit Model Jury Instruction No. 1.3 (2024).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 8 of 10 PagelD #:
`24126
`
`4. [DISPUTED]| OUTLINE OF THE TRIAL
`
`The second phase of the trial will begin now. It will follow the same format
`as the first phase.
`
`First, each side may make an opening statement. [MAGNOLIA’S
`PROPOSAL: Magnolia will present its opening statement, then Kurin will present
`its opening statement.]® After the attorneys have made their opening statements,
`then each party is given an opportunity to present its evidence.
`
`[MAGNOLIA’S PROPOSAL: The trial will proceed as follows:
`
`First, Magnolia will have the opportunity to present evidence regarding
`damages for infringement of the Magnolia Asserted Patents, including regarding
`willfulness.
`
`Next, Kurin will have the opportunity to respond to Magnolia’s evidence
`regarding damages and willfulness for infringement of the Magnolia Asserted
`Patents, and Kurin will have the opportunity to present evidence regarding damages
`for infringement of the Kurin Asserted Patent.
`
`Next, Magnolia will have the opportunity to respond to Kurin’s evidence
`
`regarding damages for infringement of the Kurin Asserted Patent, and to respond to
`
`3 Magnolia’s Position: Magnolia proposes this instruction to make clear the order
`
`of opening statement presentations.
`
`Kurin’s Position: This instruction is unnecessary given the preceding sentence,
`which provides sufficient guidance to the jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 9 of 10 PagelD #:
`24127
`
`Kurin’s evidence regarding damages and willfulness for infringement of the
`Magnolia Asserted Patents.
`Finally, Kurin will have the opportunity to respond to Magnolia’s evidence
`regarding damages for infringement of the Kurin Asserted Patent.]
`[KURIN’S PROPOSAL: The trial will proceed as follows:
`- First, Magnolia will offer evidence that it says will support its damages claim
`against Kurin.
`- Following Magnolia’s case, Kurin may present evidence in order to show
`Magnolia cannot prove its damages claim.
`- Kurin will also offer evidence that it says will support its damages claim
`against Magnolia.
`Following Kurin’s case, Magnolia may present evidence in order to show
`
`Kurin cannot prove its damages claim.]*
`
`4+ Magnolia’s Position: Magnolia proposes its instruction to provide each side an
`
`opportunity to respond to the non-burden party’s evidence on issues for which a
`party bears the burden of proof, as this Court did in the prior case between
`Magnolia and Kurin. See Magnolia Med. Techs. v. Kurin Inc., C.A. No. 19-97-
`CFC (D. Del.), Preliminary Jury Instructions (D.I. 447 at 16).
`
`Kurin’s Position: Kurin’s proposal reduces the amount of times the parties are
`switching and allows for a streamlined flow for the trial. Further, rebuttal
`evidence will unduly lengthen the trial and could confuse the jury due to the
`amount of times the parties are switching.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01124-CFC Document 353 Filed 10/23/25 Page 10 of 10 PagelD #:
`24128
`
`After all the evidence has been presented, the attorneys will present to you
`closing arguments. [MAGNOLIA’S PROPOSAL: Magnolia will present its
`closing argument, then Kurin will present its closing argument, and then Magnolia
`will present its rebuttal closing argument.]®> Then, I will give you final instructions
`on the law that applies to the case, and you will retire to the jury room to deliberate
`
`on your verdict.
`
`AUTHORITY
`
`Magnolia Med. Techs. v. Kurin, C.A. No. 19-97-CFC (D. Del), Preliminary Jury
`Instructions (D.1. 447, 449); Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics,
`Inc., C.A. No. 21-1015-JLH (D. Del.), Preliminary Jury Instructions (D.I. 682, 697);
`Third Circuit Model Jury Instructions No. 1.12 (2024).
`
`> Magnolia’s Position: Magnolia proposes this instruction to make clear the order
`
`of closing arguments. Magnolia is the Plaintiff and should therefore have a
`rebuttal closing. Kurin is the defendant and should therefore not have a rebuttal
`closing.
`
`Kurin’s Position: Magnolia’s proposal gives itself a rebuttal closing argument
`without giving Kurin a rebuttal closing argument. Kurin proposes that no rebuttal
`arguments be given due to the number of times the parties would be switching.
`But if the Court is inclined to proceed with rebuttal closing arguments, Kurin
`proposes that both sides give rebuttal closing arguments.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`