Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 312

ORDER on Dfts' objections and counterdesignations to pla's deposition designations. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 5/2/08. (djh, )

Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Doc. 312

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ANASCAPE, LTD., PLAINTIFF, V. MICROSOFT CORP., AND NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., DEFENDANTS. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS AND COUNTERDESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS DEPOSITION DESIGNATION Genyo Takeda 20:6-20:13 OBJECTIONS Calls for speculation RESPONSE Tends to show that Nintendo recognizes the value of patented inventions, which goes to its bargaining position in a hypothetical negotiation. Relevant to willfulness, offers to license patents relevant to show that Anascape is interested in licensing its patents, litigation not at issue at this point, so Rule 408 is inapposite. Sanchez's personal knowledge of the use of a motor and offset weight in cell phones is relevant to show importance of the COURT RULING Overruled. CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:06-CV-158-RC

93:10-93:17

Rule 408

Sustained.

Russell Sanchez: 19:22-20:4

Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge)

Overruled.

Dallas 255261v1

1
Dockets.Justia.com

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

OBJECTIONS [explanation follows in original] 1

RESPONSE technology, and acceptance and familiarity with those features. There is no prejudice. This testimony shows that an employee at Microsoft did not understand potentiometers to be good for controllers, and constitutes evidence of teaching away. The testimony is based on personal knowledge, and constitutes facts about potentiometers, and is based on his experience with potentiometers. This is factual testimony regarding the capability of the directional pad and the thumbsticks in the xbox controllers. It is not an opinion, and it is based on personal knowledge. This is not unduly prejudicial. Lays foundation for forthcoming testimony.

COURT RULING

21:22-22:22

Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 701 (Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses)

Overruled.

27:25-28:8

Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 701 (Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses) Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 701 (Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses) [explanation follows in original] Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 701

Designation withdrawn.

49:17-50:4

Designation withdrawn.

53:8-54:7

Gives context as to how a Microsoft engineer understood the art, is relevant to rebutting Defendants' obviousness

Designation withdrawn.

Microsoft's objections were often quite long. In the interest of keeping the chart manageable, Anascape has only included the headings for the objections. Anascape has indicated where there is more explanation for the objection. Microsoft's full objections are attached as Ex. A.

1

Dallas 255261v1

2

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

OBJECTIONS (Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses) [explanation follows in original]

RESPONSE contentions, and shows the state of the art in the field. Mr. Harmon is Microsoft's 30(b)(6) regarding licensing. Therefore his responses regarding terms of the licensing and the related technology are relevant and should be binding. Mr. Harmon is Microsoft's 30(b)(6) regarding licensing. Therefore his responses regarding terms of the licensing and the related technology are relevant and should be binding. Mr. Harmon is Microsoft's 30(b)(6) regarding licensing. Therefore his responses regarding terms of the licensing and the related technology are relevant and should be binding. Mr. Harmon is Microsoft's 30(b)(6) regarding licensing. Therefore his responses regarding terms of the licensing and the related technology are relevant and should be binding. Microsoft has taken the position that Microsoft never agrees to running royalties. Therefore questions of Microsoft's

COURT RULING

William Harmon: 27:19-27:20

27:25-27:24

30:22-31:7

31:14-32:18

67:21-67:24

Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 1002 (Requirement of Original) [explanation follows in original] Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 1002 (Requirement of Original) [explanation follows in original] Rule 402; (Relevance); Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 1002 (Requirement of Original) [explanation follows in original] Rule 402; (Relevance); Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 1002 (Requirement of Original) [explanation follows in original] Rule 402; (Relevance); Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal 3

Designation withdrawn.

Designation withdrawn.

Designation withdrawn.

Designation withdrawn.

Designation withdrawn.

Dallas 255261v1

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION

OBJECTIONS Knowledge); Rule 1002 (Requirement of Original) [explanation follows in original]

RESPONSE 30(b)(6) licensing witness are relevant to the hypothetical negotiations and Microsoft's contentions that a damages cap should apply. Microsoft has taken the position that Microsoft never agrees to running royalties. Therefore questions of Microsoft's 30(b)(6) licensing witness are relevant to the hypothetical negotiations and Microsoft's contentions that a damages cap should apply.

COURT RULING

68:1-68:9

Rule 402; (Relevance); Rule 403; (Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Of Time); Rule 602 (Lack Of Personal Knowledge); Rule 1002 (Requirement of Original) [explanation follows in original]

Designation withdrawn.

I. Anascape's Objections to Defendants' Counterdesignations Genyo Takeda, 1/22/08 80:1-23 Suggests that the Nintendo 64 controller invalidates the patents, but the Nintendo 64 controller was not properly disclosed on Defendants' invalidity contentions, pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and 3-4. Includes opinion testimony improper for a fact witness. Overruled.

104:25-106:23

Overruled.

Dallas 255261v1

4

Russell Sanchez, 10/19/07 13:20-15:4 20:5-21:21 22:23-23:22 34:25-35:8 36:21-25 46:20-24 49:2-16 50:5-51:5 Testimony regarding prior art references that were not Overruled. properly disclosed on Defendants' invalidity contentions, pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and 3-4, including the Microsoft Sidewinder controllers, other controllers from Mr. Sanchez's personal experience, and Mr. Sanchez's patents.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2 day of May, 2008.

___________________________________ Ron Clark, United States District Judge

Dallas 255261v1

5