Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 660

ORDER granting in part, denying in part and deferring in part #587 Sealed Patent Motion in Limine; granting in part, denying in part and deferring in part #604 Sealed Motion in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge John D. Love on 03/25/11. cc:attys 3-25-11 (mll, )

Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Doc. 660

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

BEDROCK COMPUTER, TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

§ § § § § § §

No. 6:09cv269 LED-JDL JURY DEMANDED

ORDER Before the Court is Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC's ("Bedrock") Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 587) and Defendants' Amended Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 604). The Court heard argument on March 24, 2011. Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, the Court ORDERS as follows. I. Bedrock's Motions in Limine Motion A. Subject of Motion Any evidence, testimony, or references to the USPTO's Feb. 22, 2011 decision granting ex parte reexamination of the `120 patent Any evidence, testimony, or reference implying that Bedrock is not the owner of the `120 patent Any evidence, testimony, or references implying that Dr. Garrod's and/or Lotvin's involvement in this litigation violates any ethical rule in light of their representation of non-Bedrock entities Any evidence, testimony, reference, attorney argument, or other comment regarding the divorce or separation proceedings of Dr. Garrod or the divorce proceedings or prenuptial agreement of Dr. Nemes 1 Disposition Deferred

B. C.

Granted Granted as Agreed

D.

Granted

Dockets.Justia.com

E.

Any evidence, testimony, or references implying that the copying of portions of claims and/or specifications from the `495 patent is improper and/or violates the patent laws, copyright laws, or is in violation of Bellcore/Telcordia's property rights Any evidence, testimony, or reference to any experts' previous and/or current retention by counsel for Bedrock Evidence, testimony, attorney argument, or other comments concerning the contingent fee arrangement between Bedrock and its trial counsel, McKool Smith, P.C., and Parker, Bunt, and Ainsworth Any evidence, testimony, or reference to Defendants' patents that might cover the accused products Evidence, testimony, attorney argument, or other comments regarding Bedrock's withdrawal of any patent claims or modifications made to those claims during reexamination or regarding products no longer accused of infringement

Granted as Instructed and Agreed

F.

Deferred

G.

Granted as Agreed

H. I.

Granted as Instructed Granted as to withdrawn claims; Denied as to changes made during reexamination and versions and products no longer accused

II.

Defendants' Motions in Limine Motion 1. Subject of Motion Preclude Plaintiff from offering testimony, evidence or argument about Defendants' revenues Preclude Plaintiff from offering testimony, evidence or argument regarding statements by third-parties about the Linux routing cache and denial of service Preclude Plaintiff from offering testimony, evidence or argument regarding the reexaminations of the `120 patent Preclude Plaintiff from offering testimony, evidence or argument regarding lay witness statements 2 Disposition Granted as to overall revenue, otherwise Denied Denied

3.

4.

Deferred

5.

Deferred

regarding validity or infringement 6. Preclude Plaintiff from referring to code in unaccused versions of Linux when arguing or otherwise attempting to establish infringement Preclude any mention of denial of service attacks that do not relate to the routing cache Preclude evidence, argument, or reference to Google's modified 2.6.34 code as infringing Preclude evidence of Discovery disputes, this Court's Orders on discovery disputes, or any allegations of litigation misconduct Preclude Dr. Jones' testimony regarding secondary factors of non-obviousness Preclude any mention of (a) other litigation and (b) the Court's rulings in this case Defendant MySpace, Inc.'s motion to preclude the introduction of evidence or argument that MySpace allegedly attempted to mislead or conceal information concerning MySpace's system Preclude any argument or suggestion that (a) a nonAOL or non-Google defendant's decision to not remove the accused code is evidence of alleged infringement, or (b) a defendant's removal of the accused code is evidence of infringement Preclude Dr. Mark Jones from offering opinions as to . testing by expert Aaron Turner due to Dr. Jones' lack of opinions on this testing Preclude evidence that third parties have used or attempted to use defendants' websites for unlawful or immoral purposes Denied

7.

Granted as to WikiLeaks, otherwise Denied Denied AGREED

8. 10.

11. 12.

Denied Granted as Instructed, otherwise Denied Granted

13.

14.

Denied

15.

Granted as Agreed

16.

AGREED

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of March, 2011.

3 ___________________________________ JOHN D. LOVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE