## Facts

- Laitram Corporation owned five U.S. patents relating to calculator technology developed by inventor James P. Lapeyre.
- Laitram sued Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) in the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging HP manufactured and sold calculators that infringed Laitram’s patented technology.
- The case presented multiple liability-related questions, including infringement, invalidity, and patent-enforcement issues.
- Laitram sought a reasonable-royalty recovery; the damages presentation was expected to require application of many royalty factors and detailed financial and accounting proof.
- HP moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) for separate trials, asking the court to:
  - try liability issues first, and then try damages and willful infringement later before a different jury; and
  - stay discovery on damages and willful infringement until after a liability verdict.
- HP argued that willfulness evidence was tied to damages and that separating phases and discovery would reduce prejudice, avoid jury confusion, and conserve resources if HP prevailed on liability.

## Issues

1. Under Rule 42(b), should the court order separate trials before different juries on (a) liability and (b) damages and willful infringement?
2. Should the court stay discovery on damages and willful infringement until after a determination of liability?
3. If full bifurcation is not warranted, what trial structure best balances efficiency and fairness in light of overlapping proof across liability, damages, and willfulness?

## Decision

- The court denied HP’s motion to the extent it sought separate trials with separate juries.
- The court denied HP’s request to stay discovery on damages and willful infringement.
- The court ordered that trial would proceed in three phases:
  - Phase 1: liability tried to a verdict before a jury.
  - Phase 2: if necessary, damages tried immediately afterward to the same jury.
  - Phase 3: after the jury is discharged, the court would receive evidence and decide willful infringement.
- Discovery was ordered to continue as scheduled on all issues.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 42(b) permits separate trials of issues or claims “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy,” and the trial court has broad discretion in applying that standard.
- When issues overlap factually, using different juries for different phases can create duplication, added cost, and a risk of inconsistent factfinding; those concerns weigh against separate juries.
- A phased trial before a single jury can reduce jury confusion and avoid unnecessary damages proof if no liability is found, while preserving continuity on shared factual questions between liability and damages.
- A blanket stay of damages and willfulness discovery may create delay and inefficiency where the case schedule anticipates trial preparation on all issues and where discovery topics may intersect.
- Evidence on willful infringement may be separated from the jury phases to limit prejudice on liability questions, with the court receiving willfulness evidence after the jury completes its work.

## Conclusion

In this patent infringement action involving calculator technology and complicated royalty proof, the court refused to bifurcate the case into separate jury trials or to halt damages-related discovery, and instead ordered a three-phase proceeding: liability to a jury, damages (if needed) immediately to the same jury, and willful infringement to the judge after the jury’s discharge.


Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 791 F. Supp. 113, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (1992)