Metaswitch Networks Ltd v. GENBAND US LLC et al
Filing
289
ORDER granting 264 Agreed Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 199 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 200 Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 03/01/2016. (rsp2, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
METASWITCH NETWORKS LTD.
v.
GENBAND US LLC, ET AL.
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 2:14-cv-744-JRG-RSP
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Before the Court are Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiff Metaswitch Networks Ltd.
(“Metaswitch”) (Dkt. No. 199) and by Defendant Genband US LLC (“Genband”) (Dkt. No. 200).
The Court held an initial pretrial conference February 22, 2016 and heard oral arguments on these
motions. The parties also filed Agreed Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 264) and two Status Updates
Regarding Motions in Limine (Dkt. Nos. 271, 280) identifying additional agreements.
To the extent a motion in limine is granted, a party must approach the bench before
introducing evidence or argument about the covered subject matter.
I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A. Agreed Motions in Limine (Dkt. 264, 271)
The following Motions are GRANTED AS AGREED:
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 1: No party will offer evidence, opinion, or argument that relates to
or invokes claim construction issues or otherwise undermines or collaterally attacks the Court’s
claim constructions.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 2: No party will offer evidence, opinion, or argument that relates to
rejected claim construction positions, including attorney argument during the Markman hearing.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 3: No party will offer testimony, opinion, or argument that relates
to jury consultants, shadow juries, or focus groups before or during trial.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 4: No party will refer to objections made to the portions of
deposition testimony played at trial.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 5: No party will offer evidence or suggest that any asserted claims
are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 7 1: No party will offer criticism of the performance, reliability or
credibility of the USPTO or the examiners that work at the USPTO, refer to the existence of any
“backlog” at the USPTO, refer to the issuance of “bad patents,” or offer other similar evidence or
remarks. A party is not precluded from introducing evidence that a particular prior art reference
was or was not considered during the prosecution of an asserted patent.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 8: No party will refer to the fact that patents or claims have been
dropped or dismissed prior to trial, including any claims voluntarily withdrawn by any party or
dismissed by the Court on summary judgment.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 9: No party will introduce any motion or Court order as evidence,
along with any references that either party won or lost a motion. To be clear, this agreed motion in
limine does not seek to preclude arguments and opinions by the parties and their experts that the
asserted claims are or are not infringed or invalid under the Court’s claim construction ruling, as
1
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 6 is intentionally excluded from this Order. The parties’ agreed
filing indicates this Motion was “withdrawn.” (Dkt. No. 264-1 at 2).
2
such references to the Court’s claim construction ruling are plainly permissible (to the extent such
arguments and opinions are not otherwise precluded pursuant to any Daubert motion or motion in
limine).
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 10: No party will offer evidence and arguments referencing the
existence of claims by or between the parties that are not a part of Metaswitch Networks Ltd., et al.
v. Genband USA LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-744-JRG-RSP (“the -744 action”), including
references to the existence of related action Genband U.S. LLC v. Metaswitch Networks, Ltd., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-33 (“the -33 action”). To be clear, this agreed motion in limine does not seek
to preclude either party from offering discovery produced in either case, including documents,
deposition testimony, and trial testimony on the basis that those were produced in another case.
With respect to prior trial testimony, the testimony may be referred to as “testimony,” “previous
testimony,” “prior testimony,” and the like, but may not reference “trial” or the -33 action by
name.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 11: No party will refer to the fact that a party’s expert witness was
previously considered for retention by, was retained by, or is currently retained by the opposing
party’s counsel. In other words, the only affiliation between a party’s counsel and an expert
witness that may be referred to is the expert witness’s current affiliation as a testifying expert
witness for a party in this litigation.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 12: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to the
fact that testimony or opinions offered by any expert may have been excluded in this lawsuit or in
3
any other lawsuits.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 13: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or suggestion that
a damage award in this case (or damage awards generally) may drive up the price of products, put
manufacturers out of business, or cause jobs to be lost.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 14: The parties will refrain from referring to each other as a
“patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty hunter,” “privateer,” “bandit,” “patent assertion entity,” “a
company that doesn’t make anything,” or “a company that doesn’t sell anything”; referring to any
asserted patent as a “submarine patent” or “paper patent”; or refer to this litigation as a “stick up,”
“hold up,” shakedown,” or “playing the lawsuit lottery.”
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 15: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or suggestion that
practicing a party’s own patent or patent application is a defense to infringement.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 16: Exclude references to the type or character of the legal practice
of all law firms representing parties in this case or to the number of attorneys, number of offices,
location of offices, revenues, profits, or the number, nature or identity of other clients of the law
firms.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 17: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to
discovery disputes, the timeliness of disclosures or productions, as well as suggestions that a party
was withholding or preventing access to source code despite being in compliance with the
4
protective order. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not prevent an expert testifying that the
source code he reviewed was produced by the opposing party on a source code computer or in
source code printouts, or prevent an expert from explaining that they supplemented their report to
address additional information or evidence provided no reference is made to the timeliness of any
production.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 18: Consistent with the Court’s ruling in the related -33 action on
Genband’s MIL No. 21, evidence and argument relevant only to equitable issues is precluded in
the presence of the jury absent agreement of counsel. This agreement is based on the parties
understanding that the Court will be addressing equitable claims and defenses at a hearing to be
scheduled after the trial in the matter.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 19: No testimony regarding Brendon Mills’ employment or
interactions with Carrius Technologies/AppTrigger/Metaswitch after leaving Genband, or the
cease-and-desist letter sent by Genband.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 20: No argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to alleged
copying of a practicing product as evidence of copying an asserted patent unless the proponent of
the copying evidence has shown that the alleged copying bears some nexus to an asserted claim
(e.g., by submitting evidence at trial that the practicing product practices at least one asserted
claim) (see -33 Case, Dkt. No. 436)) before offering evidence of the alleged copying. For the
avoidance of doubt, this MIL only applies to arguments, testimony, evidence, and references to
copying based on alleged copying of a practicing product.
5
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 21: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to
any reexamination petition, inter partes review petition, or other post-grant review proceedings
before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
Agreed Motion in Limine No. 22: Exclude any testimony or opinion that the QUANTiX QFlex
eSBC product allegedly infringes the ’640 Patent.
B. Metaswitch’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. 199)
Motion in Limine No. 1: Exclude any testimony or reference to non-expert opinions relating to
issues of infringement, validity, claim construction, or standard essentiality of any patent.
GRANTED-IN-PART, with respect to Mr. David Smith only. If Mr. Smith testifies live,
Genband may not elicit his opinion on issues of infringement, validity, claim construction, or
standard essentiality of any patent. However, if the evidence shows that Mr. Smith communicated
to Genband his belief(s) as to the infringement, validity, or standard essentiality of a patent,
Genband may approach the bench and request leave to examine Mr. Smith about such belief(s).
Motion in Limine No. 2: Preclude any expert from opining both that a product does not practice a
given patent claim and that the same product, or one that the expert opines is materially similar,
practices the same patent claim.
GRANTED as set forth in Part II, infra.
Motion in Limine No. 3: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or suggestion comparing
the prior art to infringement contentions instead of the asserted patent claims.
6
GRANTED as set forth in Part II, infra.
Motion in Limine No. 4: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or suggestion that a party
does not infringe because it “practices the prior art.”
GRANTED as set forth in Part II, infra.
Motion in Limine No. 5: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to alleged
copying by Metaswitch.
Metaswitch’s motion in limine no. 5 is WITHDRAWN by agreement of the parties and
substituted with Agreed Motion in Limine No. 20, supra. (Dkt. No. 271 at 2).
Motion in Limine No. 6: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to the fact that
a Metaswitch employee was formerly employed by Genband or its predecessors, including Nortel.
GRANTED-IN-PART. Parties may make factual statements about prior employment
history. Parties may not argue or imply that Metaswitch hired someone formerly employed by
Genband or its predecessors for a nefarious purpose or to gain an unfair advantage. Reciprocally,
parties may not argue or imply that Genband hired someone formerly employed by Metaswitch or
its predecessors for a nefarious purpose or to gain an unfair advantage.
Motion in Limine No. 7: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or suggestion that any
document or evidence was obtained improperly.
DENIED. The Court will address the admissibility of specific evidence on an individual
basis.
7
Motion in Limine No. 8: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or suggestion that
Metaswitch or any officer, employee, or consultant, violated or infringed any intellectual property
not asserted in this case or breached or induced breach of any contract.
GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 9: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to prior art or
prior art combinations that were not included in invalidity contentions or elected. This would not
preclude prior art or combinations later added pursuant to a successful motion to amend invalidity
contentions.
GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 10: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to any
pending reexamination petition, inter partes review petition, or other post-grant review proceedings
before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that have been instituted. This motion does not
preclude reference to post-grant review petitions where the PTAB denied institution of review.
Metaswitch’s motion in limine no. 10 is WITHDRAWN by agreement of the parties, and
substituted with Agreed Motion in Limine No. 21, supra. (Dkt. No. 280).
Motion in Limine No. 11: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or reference to the nonarms-length $1.00 license relating to the ’273 patent.
Metaswitch’s motion in limine no. 11 is WITHDRAWN by agreement of the parties. (Dkt.
8
No. 271 at 1).
Motion in Limine No. 12: Exclude use of the terms “reverse engineering” and “stealth mode.”
DENIED.
Motion in Limine No. 13: Exclude any argument, testimony, evidence, or suggestion comparing a
preferred embodiment of the asserted patents to the accused products.
At the Pretrial Conference, Metaswitch submitted the following proposed compromise,
which the Court GRANTS:
No party may argue that the claims are limited to a specific embodiment or compare an
accused product to a specific embodiment to argue infringement or non-infringement, but parties
may refer to an embodiment in the context of explaining the patent.
Motion in Limine No. 14: Exclude any argument that Nortel MG9K and CS2K contain the
accused features, predates the priority date of the ‘273 patent, or is prior art to the ‘273 patent.
DENIED. However, arguments and evidence about the Nortel MG9K and CS2K are
excluded to the extent such arguments would violate any other Motion(s) in Limine.
C. Genband’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. 200)
Motion in Limine No. 1: Exclude evidence or argument related to Metaswitch’s unfair
competition allegations and other counterclaims that have been stayed.
The Court severs this Motion into sub-parts and rules on each as follows:
Sub-Part 1.1: Exclude allegations that Genband brought its patent claims or counterclaims
9
for an improper or anticompetitive purpose, such as suggesting Genband brought “sham”
litigation or that Genband is violating antitrust laws.
GRANTED by agreement with the proviso that Genband will not argue that this
case was filed in response to the 2:14-cv-33 action.
Sub-Part 1.2: Exclude allegations that Genband asserted patents knowing that they are
invalid, or unenforceable.
DENIED.
Sub-Part 1.3: Exclude alleged plans to acquire Metaswitch and eliminate competitors.
GRANTED-IN-PART as to plans to eliminate competitors.
Sub-Part 1.4: Exclude alleged plans to kill Metaswitch or put it out of business, including
that Genband is at “war” with Metaswitch.
GRANTED.
Sub-Part 1.5: Alleged statements by Genband concerning Metaswitch’s financial condition
or stability.
GRANTED as to statements to third parties by Genband about Metaswitch’s
financial condition.
Sub-Part 1.6: Alleged statements by Genband to customers concerning the -33 or -744
lawsuits.
10
GRANTED.
Sub-Part 1.7: Alleged statements by Genband to customers that Metaswitch infringes
Genband’s patents.
DENIED.
Sub-Part 1.8: Alleged plans to disrupt an initial public offering by Metaswitch.
GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 2: Exclude evidence or argument suggesting that Genband brought its
counterclaims to reduce competition.
GRANTED by agreement. However Genband may open the door by placing its
motivations for filing suit at issue.
Motion in Limine No. 3: Exclude evidence or argument related to Genband wanting or trying to
put Metaswitch out of the market.
GRANTED by agreement. However the parties are not precluded from introducing
evidence of competition.
Motion in Limine No. 4: Exclude evidence or argument related to Genband acquisitions or
divestitures other than those related to the chain of title of the patents-in-suit or relevant to the
accused Genband products.
GRANTED-IN-PART.
11
Metaswitch may not refer to Genband acquisitions or divestitures to suggest that Genband
does not compete fairly or that it is improper to grow a company by acquisition. Likewise
Metaswitch may not use evidence of Genband acquisitions or divestitures to argue any claim or
defense that has been stayed and severed from this action. However, evidence of Genband
acquisitions or divestitures may be used to the extent such evidence is relevant to damages.
Motion in Limine No. 5: Exclude evidence or argument related to layoffs or restructuring at
Genband.
GRANTED. However, Genband may open the door by introducing evidence or argument
about Metaswitch’s hiring of former Genband employees.
Motion in Limine No. 6: Exclude testimony regarding Brendon Mills’s employment or
interactions with Carrius Technologies/AppTrigger/Metaswitch, or the cease-and-desist letter sent
by Genband.
Genband’s motion in limine no. 6 is WITHDRAWN by agreement of the parties. (Dkt.
No. 264-1 at 1).
Motion in Limine No. 7: Exclude evidence or argument related to the terms of standards
participation agreements.
GRANTED-IN-PART by agreement of the parties. Expert witnesses are precluded from
offering testimony interpreting the terms of any standards participation agreement.
Motion in Limine No. 8: Exclude evidence or argument related to whether one company is an
“alter ego” or is liable for the obligations of another company, including but not limited to whether
any Nortel-related entities are alter egos of each other.
12
GRANTED.
Motion in Limine No. 9: Exclude evidence or argument related to the Open VOB Forum.
DENIED.
Motion in Limine No. 10: Exclude evidence or argument related to references identified in an
expert report’s “technology background” section that were not charted in Metaswitch’s invalidity
contentions.
GRANTED. Neither party may rely on unelected prior art references, including
standards.
Motion in Limine No. 11: Exclude testimony or opinion that the QUANTiX QFlex eSBC product
allegedly infringes the ’640 Patent.
Genband’s motion in limine no. 11 is GRANTED by agreement of the parties. (Dkt. No.
280); see also Agreed Motion in Limine No. 22, supra (granting same relief).
Motion in Limine No. 12: Exclude evidence or argument related to alleged copying by Genband.
The Court DEFERS ruling on this Motion. The Court will address this Motion in
connection with Genband’s Motion to Strike Opinions of Dr. Eric W. Burger. (Dkt. No. 175).
Motion in Limine No. 13: Exclude evidence or argument related to references to total revenue
numbers for the accused Genband products and prices paid or considered for other technology.
GRANTED-IN-PART. Both parties agree to approach the bench before introducing
evidence of total revenues for any accused product(s). Moreover, both parties agree to approach
13
the bench before introducing evidence of the CVAS acquisition price or any amount bid for the
CVAS assets.
Motion in Limine No. 14: Exclude evidence or argument suggesting that the jury should award
damages for sales or other activities of Nortel or uReach.
The Court DEFERS ruling on this Motion. The Court will address this Motion in
connection with Genband’s Motion to Strike Opinions of Metaswitch’s Damages Expert. (Dkt. No.
181).
Motion in Limine No. 15: Exclude evidence or argument related to Lance Gunderson’s untimely
calculations for the ’667 patent.
The Court DEFERS ruling on this Motion. The Court will address this Motion in
connection with Metaswitch’s Motion to Strike Opinions of Damages Expert Christopher
Bakewell. (Dkt. No. 183).
II. MOTION TO STRIKE MR. JAMES R. BRESS
Metaswitch Moves to Strike Portions of the Expert Report of Mr. James R. Bress. (Dkt.
No. 179; “Motion to Strike”). Metaswitch moves to strike two categories of opinions: (1) Mr.
Bress’s invalidity opinions that rely on Metaswitch’s infringement theories, and (2) aspects of Mr.
Bress’s non-infringement opinions that Metaswitch contends misinterpret or misapply the claim
language. The first of these two categories is relevant to Metaswitch’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2,
3, 4, and 9. Accordingly, the Court addresses that aspect of the Motion to Strike herein.
Issued patents are presumed valid, and the accused infringer bears the burden of proving
14
invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., 135 S. Ct. 1920,
1929 (2015). “[T]o prove that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), defendants must
present clear and convincing evidence that a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
inherently, each limitation of the claim.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
There is a narrow exception. When the defendant contends the patent is invalidated by the
accused product itself, the patentee’s infringement allegations operate as a concession that the
accused product meets the limitations of the asserted claims. See Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 201 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Vanmoor exception requires an identity between
the accused product and the asserted prior art, at least with respect to the aspects of the product that
are accused of infringement. See Vanmoor, 201 F.3d at 1366 (prior art accused product “made to
specifications that remain unchanged to the present day”); U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Tex.
Instruments, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45926 at *9 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2014) (A party “cannot
argue a product contains each and every element of the patented invention for infringement
purposes, but that the same product does not contain each and every element of the patented
invention for invalidity purposes.”) (emphasis added); Inline Connection Corp. v. Earthlink, Inc.,
684 F. Supp. 2d 496, 514 (D. Del. 2010) (holding it is not sufficient for the prior art and the
accused product to be “materially identical”; there must be “no dispute that the accused infringing
product was identical to the prior art”) (emphasis added).
The Vanmoor exception is, and must be, narrowly construed to require the defendant to
allege and prove an identity between the accused product and the prior art. This is so for two
important reasons. First, to allow a defendant to show mere similarity, analogy, or comparability
between the “features” or “functionality” of the accused product and the prior art would
15
impermissibly allow defendants to sidestep the rigorous standard of proof for invalidity—clear and
convincing evidence that the prior art discloses “each limitation of the claim.” See In re
Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d at 1349. Second, opening the Vanmoor door more than a crack
invites a “practicing the prior art” defense, which the Federal Circuit has squarely and repeatedly
rejected as improper: “anticipation cannot be proved by merely establishing that one ‘practices the
prior art’ . . . mere proof that the prior art is identical, in all material respects, to an allegedly
infringing product cannot constitute clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.” Zenith Elecs.
Corp. v. PDI Commun. Sys., 522 F.3d 1348, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus proof that the accused
product and the prior art are similar, comparable, or even materially identical, is not sufficient
under Vanmoor and Zenith. See also Inline Connection, 684 F. Supp. 2d at 515 (attempting to
prove the accused product and the prior were “materially identical” constituted an impermissible
“practicing the prior art” defense).
Metaswitch challenges the sufficiency of Genband’s Vanmoor invalidity theory, articulated
in the Expert Report of Mr. Bress. First, Metaswitch argues Genband’s theory was not properly
disclosed under the Patent Local Rules, which require invalidity contentions to contain “[t]he
identity of each item of prior art that allegedly anticipates . . . [p]rior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
shall be identified by specifying the item offered for sale or publicly used or known, the date the
offer or use took place or the information became known, and the identity of the person or entity
which made the use or which made and received the offer, or the person or entity which made the
information known or to whom it was made known.” Pat. L.R. 3-3(a). Invalidity contentions must
also contain “[a] chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element
of each asserted claim is found.” Pat. L.R. 3-3(c).
Genband’s contentions, for each patent, recite some variation of the following under the
16
heading “Other Grounds for Invalidity”:
Metaswitch has provided claim charts with its view of how certain functionality of
the GENBAND accused products practice the asserted claims. The GENBAND
products accused of infringing the ’768 Patent do not practice all limitations of any
valid claim of the ’768 Patent. However, because the GENBAND accused products
and/or their predecessor products that included the accused functionality were sold,
offered for sale, and/or in public use prior the filing date of the ’768 Patent
GENBAND, to the extent any GENBAND accused product is found to infringe a
claim of the ’768 Patent, such claim would be invalid as a matter of law in view of
the GENBAND accused product and/or its predecessor products.
(Dkt. No. 194-2 at 5); see also (id. at 3–4, 6–7). For the ’522 and ’640 Patents, Genband also
purports to provide non-limiting examples of “accused products and/or their predecessor products”
in the form of a parenthetical: “(e.g., Nortel MCS, A2 Application Server, Nortel CS2K, Nortel
CS2000, Nortel Personal Communicator).” (Id. at 4).
The problems with this disclosure are multifarious. First, Genband does not specify the
identity of “each item or prior art” it relies on; at best it provides non-limiting examples of
“accused products and/or their predecessor products.” Second, Genband does not specify the
statutory grounds for its invalidity theory. Indeed, the use of “and/or” could be interpreted to mean
that Genband intends to combine accused products and predecessor products as part of an
obviousness theory. Third, Genband does not include a chart under Pat. L.R. 3-3(c). This might be
excusable in the context of a Vanmoor argument, since it relies on the Plaintiff’s infringement
theory, but at a minimum Genband should have identified specific infringement contention chart(s)
and incorporated them by reference. Finally, Genband does not specify where or when the accused
products were allegedly available before the priority date.
Metaswitch also argues that Genband’s expert Mr. Bress, who opines that the asserted
claims are anticipated by the accused products, does not advance a proper Vanmoor invalidity
theory. Metaswitch contends that the functionality of the accused products changes “regularly as
17
new features, product enhancements, and bug fixes” are added, and that at least one accused
feature (the “One Number/Family Number” feature) was added to the accused products after the
priority date of the ’522 Patent. (Dkt. No. 201 at 3). Metaswitch argues that Mr. Bress’s report
does not adequately contend with these changes.
Mr. Bress opines that “at least some of the Accused uReach Products were sold, offered for
sale, and/or publicly used at least one year before the ’768 Patent was filed in the United States.”
(Dkt. No. 194-3 at 7); see also (id. at 12, 13) (offering same opinion for other patents and
products). He does not opine that the accused products are identical to the versions allegedly on
sale before the priority date, instead he says “the claim chart attached as Exhibit 4a illustrates that
the functionality accused by Metaswitch was available in versions of the uReach voice mail
systems available prior to the filing of the ’768 Patent.” (Id. at 7) (emphasis added); see also (id. at
12, 13). His somewhat vague reference to “functionality” is further muddied in his attached charts.
(Dkt. Nos. 194-4, 194-5, 194-7). For most of the limitations charted, his analysis begins with the
statement “Metaswitch’s contentions are unclear about what precise functionality Metaswitch
accuses of practicing this limitation.” See, e.g. (Dkt. No. 194-4 at 3). He then opines that the
functionality Metaswitch “appears” to accuse was present in prior versions of the accused products
based on the fact that “similar documents” to those cited in Metaswitch’s contentions describe
the accused functionality in the same way. See, e.g. (id. at 3–4). For some limitations he does not
even rely on documentation, and instead states that the same “marketing term” has been applied
to a particular feature since it was introduced. See, e.g. (Dkt. No. 194-7 at 3). Mr. Bress states he
has not reviewed source code for these products.
Neither Genband nor Mr. Bress disputes Metaswitch’s contention that the accused products
are regularly modified with software version updates. Therefore it is Genband’s burden under
18
Vanmoor to prove that the accused elements remain unchanged between the accused products and
the alleged prior art versions, despite these periodic updates. Admitting uncertainty as to what is
actually being accused, then noting that an accused “functionality” is described the same way in
documentation (or that the same “marketing term” is applied) is not sufficient. Mr. Bress’ broadstrokes opinions about similar “functionality” constitute an impermissible practicing the prior art
defense. See Zenith, 522 F.3d at 1363.
.
The Court finds that Genband has not met the legal requirements of a Vanmoor invalidity
defense; both its invalidity contentions and the Report of Mr. Bress are insufficient to properly
raise this defense. Accordingly, Metaswitch’s Motion to Strike and corresponding Motions in
Limine are GRANTED to the extent that Genband is precluded from raising any § 102 or § 103
invalidity defense that does not rely on proof that the prior art (individually or in combination)
discloses each element of one or more asserted claims.
At this time, the Court does not rule on the aspects of Metaswitch’s Motion to Strike that
pertain to Mr. Bress’s interpretation and application of the claim language.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2016.
____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
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?