Prism Technologies v. AT&T et al

Filing 469

ORDER that the parties' joint stipulation (Filing No. 450) is approved and adopted. Plaintiff's motion (Filing No. 448) is granted. The Court defers consideration on objections (Filing No. 444, Filing No. 445, Filing No. 446). Defendant 's motion to compel (Filing No. 435) is denied. Defendant's motion to preclude Prism's untimely and improper alternative damages theory and new damages evidence, or in the alternative, to continue the trial date and reopen discovery on damages (Filing No. 441) is denied. Plaintiff's objections to Ms. Davis' testifying at trial (Filing No. 462) are denied. Her testimony must be limited per this Court's order (Filing No. 425). Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV122

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a number of motions.
First, a new joint stipulation on motions in limine
(Filing No. 450) has been submitted.

The Court will approve and

adopt the stipulation.
Second, plaintiff Prism renews its motion in limine
number 11 from a previous motion (Filing No. 448).

Because Prism

no longer seeks to assert willfulness or induced infringement,
the Court will reconsider the motion in limine in question.
motion in limine states the following:

That

Neither party may refer

to changes to the parties’ infringement and/or invalidity
contentions, for example, claims, accused elements and prior art
that is no longer asserted (Filing No. 449, at 2).

The Court

will grant the plaintiff’s motion.
Third, defendant AT&T and plaintiff Prism have traded
objections over proposed jury instructions (Filing No. 444,

Filing No. 445, Filing No. 446).

The Court will defer

consideration of these objections.
Fourth, defendant AT&T has filed an emergency motion to
compel (Filing No. 435).

This motion will be denied.

Fifth, defendant AT&T has filed an emergency motion to
preclude Prism's untimely and improper alternative damages theory
and new damages evidence, or in the alternative, to continue the
trial date and reopen discovery on damages (Filing No. 441).

The

motions will be denied.
Sixth, plaintiff Prism renews its objections to Ms.
Davis’ testifying at trial (Filing No. 462).

After review of the

several filings on this topic (Filing No. 252, Filing No. 410,
Filing No. 425, Filing No. 462), the Court will allow Ms. Davis
to testify.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) The parties’ joint stipulation (Filing No. 450) is
approved and adopted.
2) Plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 448) is granted.
3) The Court defers consideration on objections (Filing
No. 444, Filing No. 445, Filing No. 446).
4) Defendant’s motion to compel (Filing No. 435) is
denied.

-2-

5) Defendant’s motion to preclude Prism's untimely and
improper alternative damages theory and new damages evidence, or
in the alternative, to continue the trial date and reopen
discovery on damages (Filing No. 441) is denied.
6) Plaintiff’s objections to Ms. Davis’ testifying at
trial (Filing No. 462) are denied.

Her testimony must be limited

per this Court’s order (Filing No. 425).
DATED this 20th day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-