First American CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc. et al

Filing 428

ORDER denying in part 347 CoreLogic's Motions in Limine Nos. 4, 5 and 6; granting in part and denying in part 349 Defendants' Motions in Limine Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S Payne on 09/23/2012. (rsp1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
CORELOGIC INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
FISERV, INC., et al.

Case No. 2:10-CV-132-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff CoreLogic Information Solutions, Inc.’s Motions in Limine
(Dkt No. 347, filed August 20, 2012) and Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 349, filed
August 20, 2012). The Court heard argument on several of the motions during the pretrial
hearing held on September 6, 2012. See Pretrial Hr’g Tr., Dkt. No. 404. On September 20,
2012, the Court issued a ruling on a number of the motions. See Dkt. No. 411. This order
addresses the remaining motions.
The Court’s ruling on a motion in limine is not a definitive ruling on the admissibility of
evidence. An order granting a motion in limine is an order to approach the bench and seek leave
from the Court prior to presenting the evidence covered by the order to the jury. Similarly, an
order denying a motion in limine does not relieve a party from making an objection at trial.
CoreLogic’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Evidence that CoreLogic Licenses Data to
DataQuick) is DENIED.
CoreLogic’s Motion in Limine No. 5 (Evidence that Non-Infringing Alternatives Exist)
is DENIED.
CoreLogic’s Motion in Limine No. 6 (Evidence that CoreLogic Has Not Accused Other
Products of Infringement) is DENIED.

Interthinx’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Exclude Evidence of the Entire Market Value of
the FraudGUARD Product) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED: No reference shall be made to the
unapportioned revenue or profit earned from the sales of accused products.
.
Interthinx’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Preclude CoreLogic From Introducing Evidence
That FraudGUARD Competes With CoreLogic’s AVMs) is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 (Exclude Evidence Based on Court’s Ruling
Patent Marking Motion) is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 (Preclude Evidence on the Absence of NonInfringing Alternatives) is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 81 (Preclude Evidence Excusing Evidence of Delay)
is GRANTED: Laches is an equitable issue that will be tried to the bench after the jury trial.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 23rd day of September, 2012.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

Defendants did not file a Motion in Limine No. 7.

-2-