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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?