Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 571

ORDER granting 439 Motion in Limine; granting 440 Sealed Motion; granting 441 Sealed Motion; granting 442 Motion in Limine; granting 443 Sealed Motion; granting 444 Motion in Limine; granting 446 Sealed Motion; granting 447 Motion in Limine; granting 448 Motion in Limine; granting 449 Sealed Motion; granting 450 Sealed Motion; granting 451 Sealed Motion; granting in part and denying in part and withdrawing 453 Sealed Motion; granting in part and denying in part 454 Sealed Motion; granting in part and denying in part 455 Sealed Motion; granting 457 Sealed Motion; granting in part and denying in part 460 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 462 Sealed Motion; granting in part and denying in part 464 Sealed Motion; granting in part and denying in part 476 Sealed Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham on 7/31/2010. (sm, )

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 571

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC vs. GOOGLE INC., ET AL. § § § § § ORDER Before the court are the plaintiff Bright Response, LLC's ("Bright Response") motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 439, 453, 460); the defendants AOL, LLC's, America Online, Inc.'s (collectively, "AOL"), Google, Inc.'s ("Google"), Yahoo! Inc.'s ("Yahoo") joint motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 440-51, 457)); Google's and AOL's motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 454-55, 462, 464); and Yahoo's motions in limine (Dkt. No. 476). The court has reviewed the parties' respective motions in limine and makes the following rulings: Bright Response's Motions in Limine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. DENIED. WITHDRAWN. WITHDRAWN. DENIED. DENIED. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. GRANTED as agreed. GRANTED as agreed. GRANTED as agreed. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence.

CASE NO. 2:07-CV-371-CE

Dockets.Justia.com

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. DENIED. WITHDRAWN. DENIED. GRANTED. The defendants may not state that a particular product or service was formerly accused of infringement but now is no longer accused of infringement. The defendants may explain, however, that particular products or services are not accused of infringement.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

GRANTED as agreed. GRANTED. DENIED. GRANTED. GRANTED. GRANTED in part. The defendants may inform the jury that the PTO and its examiners have limited time to examine applications, but the defendants may not speculate about the time spent reviewing the `947 patent's application or discuss the average time the PTO spends reviewing patent applications. Further, the parties may not state or imply the PTO examiners were incompetent. But the defendants may prove that the examiners failed to properly apply prior art to claims and may explain that jury is permitted to decide questions of validity even if the examiners had the same art before them.

22.

GRANTED as agreed as to "patent trolls," "pirates," "playing the lawsuit lottery," and "corporate shell game." Otherwise, this motion is DENIED.

23.

GRANTED.

2

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

GRANTED. GRANTED. GRANTED. GRANTED. GRANTED. GRANTED. GRANTED. GRANTED. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence.

Defendants' Joint Motions in Limine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. DENIED. DENIED. DENIED. DENIED. GRANTED. DENIED. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. DENIED. DENIED. GRANTED as agreed.

3

12. 13.

GRANTED as agreed. DENIED.

Google's and AOL's Motions in Limine 1. GRANTED. The plaintiff may not use confidential Yahoo license agreements for

computation of damages against Google. 2. 3. 4. GRANTED as to the overall size and revenue of the defendants. GRANTED as to conduct during discovery. This motion in limine applies to all parties. DENIED with respect to the expert damage analysis in Function Media v. Google; the plaintiff may use the royalty calculation from the Stanford-Google agreement. Otherwise, the motion is GRANTED. Yahoo's Motions in Limine 1. 2. GRANTED as to the overall size and revenue of the defendants. GRANTED. The plaintiff may not use confidential Google license agreements for

computation of damages against Yahoo. 3. 4. 5. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. GRANTED. GRANTED as agreed.

4

SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2010.

___________________________________ CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5