Sorrell Holdings LLC v. Infinity Headwear & Apparel, LLC

Filing 138

ORDER granting 120 Motion in Limine; denying 122 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 125 Motion in Limine; granting 127 Motion in Limine. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on November 8, 2021. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
SORRELL HOLDINGS, LLC
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:16-cv-04019

INFINITY HEADWEAR &
APPAREL, LLC

DEFENDANT
ORDER

On November 1, 2021, the Court held the Initial Pretrial Conference and hearing on the
parties Motions in Limine which included ECF Nos. 120, 122, 125, and 127. The parties have
consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct any and all
proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and
conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 33. The Court having reviewed the four
Motions in Limine filed by the parties, finds as follows:
1. Defendant’s General Motion in Limine. ECF No. 120
With this Motion, Defendant seeks to exclude from evidence four (4) general areas of
evidence or argument.
The Court GRANTS this Motion and excludes (1) the discussion of settlement negotiations
that have occurred in this matter, (2) argumentative voir dire, (3) speaking objections and
arguments by counsel in the presence of the jury, and (4) the mentioning of any documents that
have not been previously produced in discovery.
2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine Related to Sales and Licensing Documents. ECF No. 122
With this Motion, Defendant seeks to exclude various documents they anticipate being
offered by Plaintiff which involve Plaintiff’s purported license of the patent-in-suit to a Montana
company called Kelly Kinetics and Kelly Kinetics’ sales under such license agreement.
1

This Motion is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion in Limine regarding Invalidity. ECF No. 125
With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to exclude any evidence or argument that the 007 Patent
is anticipated or obvious based on (a) the use of U.S. Patent No. D438,673 to Wilhelm (“Wilhelm”)
or U.S. Patent No. 5,727,277 to Chien (“Chien”), or (b) the combination of several prior art
references.
Based on this Court’s prior Order staying the matter pending reexamination of the 007
Patent (ECF No. 68), the Court GRANTS the Motion as it relates to Plaintiff’s request to exclude
evidence or argument that the 007 Patent is anticipated or obvious based on the use of the patent
to Wilhelm or Chien. However, the Court will DENY the Motion as it relates to Plaintiff’s request
that Defendant be precluded from asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine regarding the Sample Loofah. ECF No. 127
With this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to exclude from evidence any attempt by Defendant to
argue or admit a physical example of the product that is covered by the Wilhelm Patent.
The Court GRANTS this Motion.
5. Conclusion
In making these rulings, the Court makes no finding related to the admissibility of the
evidence addressed by the Motions. The Court instructs counsel, and all witnesses not to mention,
refer to, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, any of the matters for which a motion in
limine was GRANTED above without first obtaining the Court’s permission outside the presence
of the jury. Further, for any matter raised by a motion in limine above which has been DENIED
by this Order, the parties retain the right to renew the same objections at the appropriate time
during trial.
2

DATED this 8th day of November 2021.

Barry A. Bryant

/s/
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3