Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
Joint MOTION in Limine Joint Agreed-Upon Motions in Limine (Nos. 1-5) by Apple, Inc.. (Randall, Jeffrey) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/26/2010: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (kls, ).
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. APPLE INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Counterclaim Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Civil Action No. 6:08-cv-88 LED
JOINT AGREED-UPON MOTIONS IN LIMINE (NOS. 1-5)
Pursuant to the Court's Docket Control Order (Doc. No. 32), Mirror Worlds, LLC and Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. (collectively, "Mirror Worlds") together with Apple Inc. ("Apple") jointly and respectfully bring the following agreed-upon motions in limine for orders precluding counsel for any party or any witnesses, from mentioning, referring to, or offering any evidence relating to the following subjects within the hearing of any member of the jury panel, either in voir dire or at any time during trial, without counsel first approaching the bench and securing a ruling as to the admissibility of the subject matter: 1. Remarks Regarding Counsel and Apple's Decision to Change Counsel
Any reference to or testimony about the law firms or lawyers representing any party including, without limitation, references to the size of the law firm, the geographic location of the law firm's offices, other matters handled by the law firm, other matters handled by the lawyer, other clients or types of clients represented by the law firm or lawyers, any disciplinary action or investigation into the law firm or lawyer representing any party, the wealth of any attorney or law firm, as well as Apple's substitution of counsel. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. GRANTED: ___________________ 2. DENIED: ____________________
The Filing, Contents, and Rulings of any Motion in Limine
That the parties have filed motions in limine, disclosing any ruling by the Court in response to any such motion, or suggesting or inferring that any party has moved to prohibit proof or that the Court has excluded proof on any particular matters. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, 605. The filing of motions, the substance of such motions, and the Court's rulings on specific motions is not relevant, and any reference thereto would be prejudicial, because it would confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and result in undue delay and waste of time. See, e.g., Jones v. Benefit Trust Line Ins. Co., 800 F.2d 1397, 1400 (5th Cir. 1986) (judge's pretrial rulings are
not relevant evidence and admission would be "at odds with Fed. R. Evid. 605"). GRANTED: ___________________ 3. DENIED: ____________________
The Non-Relevant Exchanges Between Counsel During Depositions
Any reference or attempt to read or show to the jury any non-relevant exchanges between counsel during depositions (including objections) for the reason that same are irrelevant and misleading. The parties request that all such exchanges be eliminated from the reading or showing of any depositions in this case. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. GRANTED: ___________________ 4. DENIED: ____________________
Disputes During Discovery and Rulings on Discovery-related Motions
Any reference to, evidence of, or testimony about the parties' disputes during discovery, and the Court's ruling on any discovery-related motions for the reason that same are irrelevant, misleading, and unduly prejudicial. The filing of motions, the substance of such motions, and the Court's rulings on specific motions are not relevant, and any reference thereto would be prejudicial, because it would confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and result in undue delay and waste of time. See, e.g., Jones v. Benefit Trust Line Ins. Co., 800 F.2d 1397, 1400 (5th Cir. 1986) (judge's pretrial rulings are not relevant evidence and admission would be "at odds with Fed. R. Evid. 605"). GRANTED: ___________________ 5. Use of Commercial Products DENIED: ____________________
The parties agree that their respective experts will not compare commercial products to commercial products for purposes of demonstrating infringement, either verbally or through use of demonstratives or exhibits. See Zenith Labs. v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., 19 F.3d 1418, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[I]t is error for a court to compare in its infringement analysis the
accused product or process with the patentee's commercial embodiment or other version of the product or process; the only proper comparison is with the claims of the patent."); SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("Infringement, literal or by equivalence, is determined by comparing an accused product not with a preferred embodiment described in the specification, or with a commercialized embodiment of the patentee, but with the properly and previously construed claims in suit.") (en banc). The parties also agree that their experts will not compare prior art to commercial products to demonstrate invalidity, either verbally or through use of demonstratives or exhibits. GRANTED: ___________________ DENIED: ____________________ Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 23, 2010 /s/ Alexander Solo Joseph Diamante Kenneth Stein Ian G. DiBernardo Alexander Solo STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 1280 Maiden Lane New York NY 10038 Telephone: 212-806-5400 Facsimile: 212-581-1071 firstname.lastname@example.org Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (email@example.com) Deborah J. Race (firstname.lastname@example.org) IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75730 Telephone: 903-561-1600 Facsimile: 903-581-1071 Fedserv@icklaw.com Attorneys for MIRROR WORLDS, LLC and MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Dated: August 23, 2010 /s/ Jeffrey G. Randall Jeffrey G. Randall Lead Attorney PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY, AND WALKER LLP 1117 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304-1106 Telephone: (650) 320-1850 Facsimile: (650) 320-1950 email@example.com Allan M. Soobert PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY, AND WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 551-1822 Facsimile: (202) 551-0222 firstname.lastname@example.org S. Christian Platt PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY, AND WALKER LLP 4747 Executive Dr., 12th Floor 4
San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 458-3034 Facsimile: (858) 458-3005 email@example.com Eric M. Albritton Texas State Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 758-7397 firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel for APPLE INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on this 23rd day of August, 2010. As of this date, all counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this document through the Court's CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) and by email by way of the parties' agreed upon service address: MW_v_Apple@stroock.com. /s/ Jeffrey G. Randall Jeffrey G. Randall