Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Clearwire Corporation

Filing 200

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 154 Sealed Motion; granting in part and denying in part 157 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 1/29/2014. (rsp2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
v.
CLEARWIRE CORPORATION.

§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:12-CV-308-JRG-RSP

ORDER REGARDING DISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE 
Before the Court are Defendant's Motions in Limine (Dkt. 154) and Plaintiff’s Motions in
Limine (Dkt. 157) on which the parties have not yet agreed. The Court rules as follows.

MTEL’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. 157)
1.

Evidence that a court has excluded Walter Bractic’s opinions in other cases:
GRANTED. The Court finds that allowing evidence that an expert has been
excluded in other cases carries a significant risk of juror confusion and unfair
prejudice. The cases relied upon by Clearwire are inapposite. See, e.g., Ion, Inc.
v. Sercel, Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-236, Dkt. 343 at 5-6 (allowing cross examination
as to relevant portions of Mr. Bratic’s actual opinions in other cases, not – as
Clearwire suggests – whether he had been previously excluded by the Court).

3.

Effect that a damages award would have on Clearwire or Clearwire’s customers:
GRANTED as agreed that present/future effect is inadmissible. This ruling does
not prohibit Clearwire from presenting evidence regarding whether the gross
revenue stream of the accused technology would support MTEL’s proposed
royalty; however, the Court notes that if Clearwire attempts to go beyond that to
present that they would have been “unable to pay” due to other expenditures, or
due to their financial situation in general, they open the door to MTEL presenting
evidence regarding the rest of their financial situation (see also Defendant’s
Motion in Limine #2, below).

7.

Evidence of non-infringing alternatives: DENIED. The Court permits Clearwire
to present evidence regarding non-infringing alternatives, but notes that certain
arguments may open the door for MTEL to present additional information (see
Defendant’s Motion in Limine #2, below).

8.

Clearwire witness Eric Law: DENIED as to damages-related testimony,
GRANTED as to non-damages testimony.

12.

The Court defers to its ruling on MTEL’s pending Motion to this effect.

13.

The Court defers to its ruling on MTEL’s pending Motion to this effect.

15.

MTEL’s suits against others: GRANTED.

16.

The Court defers to its ruling on MTEL’s pending Motion to this effect.

Clearwire’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. 154)
II.

Evidence of Clearwire’s investors, including Sprint’s acquisition of Clearwire:
GRANTED as to Clearwire’s investors, and also as to Sprint’s acquisition price
but with an acknowledgement that Clearwire may open the door to this price
information. The Court observes that this Motion pertains largely to the value of
Clearwire’s wireless spectrum. It appears that Clearwire intends to argue that
rather than utilize the claimed invention, it could simply use its excess spectrum
(in other words, it doesn’t need to save bandwidth because it has plenty). This
argument would make the value of that spectrum highly relevant. At the pretrial
hearing, Clearwire’s counsel argued that it is “basic economics” that the purchase
price of the spectrum bears no rational relationship to the value of “use” of the
spectrum. Further, Clearwire’s counsel explicitly took the position that because it
was not utilizing its entire spectrum, the use of that spectrum has no value. This
proposition lacks a basis in either economics or reality. The Court observes that
in the event that Clearwire takes the position that its “investment in spectrum
minimizes the relative value of the claimed attributes of the ‘403 patent,” the
value of the spectrum becomes highly relevant, and that such an argument would
thus open the door to evidence as to the value of that spectrum, including the
purchase price at issue in this Motion.

VII.

Section 1 – Expert testimony exceeding scope of report: DENIED as vague and
premature, but the Court notes that parties are always limited to the scope of their
expert reports.
Section 2 – GRANTED as agreed, that MTEL will not offer evidence regarding
damages and infringement 2012.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January,for MDHO, COMP, LTE, and/or 802.11n.
SIGNED this 29th day of January, 2014.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE