United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Polaris PowerLED Technologies
LLC's (“Polaris”) objection to the
preadmission of exhibit DX 63, proffered by Defendants
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd., and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (collectively,
“Samsung”). (See Dkt. No. 335.) Having considered
the parties' arguments and for the reasons set forth
herein, the Court overrules Polaris's objection and finds
that DX 63 should be and hereby is PREADMITTED pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 807.
accuses Samsung of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8, 223, 117
(the “'117 Patent”). (Dkt. No. 18.) Samsung,
among other defenses, asserts that the Garmin GTX327
transponder is prior art that invalidates the '117
Patent. (Dkt. No. 322, at 12.) The Garmin GTX327 is a
transponder designed to be installed in aircraft that allows
the aircraft to communicate with ground radar. Samsung's
expert, Dr. Philip C.D. Hobbs, examined and tested a model of
the GTX327 transponder to determine that, in his opinion, it
renders the '117 Patent invalid. (Dkt. No. 201-3, Part
seeks to establish that the particular transponder that Dr.
Hobbs examined (the “Tested Device”), which was
originally purchased in 2003 and sold to Dr. Hobbs in 2018,
is an authentic and unaltered model of the Garmin GTX327. In
support of this, Samsung seeks to preadmit DX 63, which
contains pages of the maintenance records of the aircraft
into which the Tested Device was installed (the
“Maintenance Log”). The Maintenance Log shows the
date on which the Tested Device was installed in the aircraft
and the date on which it was removed, after which it was sold
to Dr. Hobbs. Federal Aviation Regulations require that the
Maintenance Log be accurately maintained and transferred to
any subsequent purchaser of the aircraft. This particular
aircraft was sold, and the Maintenance Log transferred,
between the time when the Tested Device was installed and
when it was removed and sold to Dr. Hobbs.
patent cases, regional circuit law is applied to evidentiary
issues. VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308,
1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
807, the residual exception to the rule against hearsay,
allows hearsay statements to be admitted, even when not
specifically covered by a hearsay exception in FRE 803 or
(1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of
(2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered
than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through
reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best serve the
purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.
Fed. R. Evid. 807(a).
Rule 807 contemplates the consideration of multiple factors,
the ‘lodestar of the residual hearsay exception
analysis' is on the ‘equivalent circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness' requirement.” United
States v. Saguil, 600 Fed.Appx. 945, 946 (5th Cir. 2015)
(quoting United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 498 (5th
Cir. 2011)). District courts have “considerable
discretion” in applying the residual exception.
Id. (quoting United States v. Loalza-Vasquez, 735
F.2d 153, 157 (5th Cir. 1984)).