I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 314

MOTION in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION __________________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) AOL, INC. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) I/P ENGINE, INC., Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512 PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 through 403, Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) moves this Court to preclude any evidence of, reference to, or suggestion of the following topics in the trial of this case: 1. the recently filed reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420; 2. recent offers and other negotiations for, and the 2011 purchase price of, the patent portfolio that included the patents-in-suit; 3. the fee arrangement between I/P Engine and its counsel; 4. claim construction arguments that were not adopted by this Court; 5. claims that were previously included in this case but are no longer asserted, including claims against Google Search and defendants AOL and IAC’s Ask Sponsored Listings; 6. derogatory, inflammatory, confusing and irrelevant terms such as “patent troll,” “shell corporation,” “paper patent” holder, or “non-practicing entity”; 1 7. any testimony or opinions about evidence or any other subject beyond the scope of the discussion and analysis in their expert report; 8. any reference to discussions or correspondence between counsel that did not go to the Court, including discovery disputes, negotiations, claims of privilege, or motions for relief sought but not granted; and 9. any reference to courtroom observers or jury consultants. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence, precluding any evidence of, reference to, or suggestion of these topics is the most effective way to ensure that this irrelevant and prejudicial information is not considered at trial and does not confuse the jury. Dated: September 21, 2012 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531) W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423) CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC 150 West Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222) Frank C. Cimino, Jr. Kenneth W. Brothers Dawn Rudenko Albert Charles J. Monterio, Jr. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 420-2200 Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21st day of September, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on the following: Stephen Edward Noona Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 W Main St Suite 2100 Norfolk, VA 23510 senoona@kaufcan.com David Bilsker David Perlson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com Robert L. Burns Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 robert.burns@finnegan.com Cortney S. Alexander Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111 cortney.alexander@finnegan.com /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood 3