Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC

Filing 260

OMNIBUS ORDER ON THE PARTIES DISPUTED PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (ad3)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
FLYPSI, INC. (D/B/A FLYP),

Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-31-ADA

Plaintiff,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

vs.
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant.

OMNIBUS ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ DISPUTED PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
After considering briefing and holding oral arguments on January 17, 2024, the Court
hereby enters its rulings on the following disputed pre-trial motions:
Plaintiff Flypsi, Inc. (d/b/a Flyp)’s Disputed Pre-Trial Motions:
Flyp’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Google’s Affirmative Defenses
(Dkts. 149, 181, 198) is DENIED. The Court further HOLDS that prosecution history estoppel
does not preclude Flyp from asserting infringement of the asserted ’770 and ’105 patent claims
under the doctrine of equivalents with respect to the “bridge telephone number” limitation.
Flyp’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Infringement of the ’094, ’554,
and ’585 Patents (Dkts. 150, 179, 200) is DENIED.
Flyp’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Burner References,
Obviousness, and Google’s 35 U.S.C. § 112 Arguments (Dkts. 151, 183, 202) is DENIED.
Flyp’s Motion to Strike Expert Reports of Dr. Oded Gottesman, Ph.D., regarding
Noninfringement and Invalidity (Dkts. 152, 173, 196) is DENIED.
Flyp’s Motion to Strike Expert Opinions of Chris Martinez on the Cost of Non-Infringing
Alternatives (Dkts. 153, 176, 208) is DENIED.
1

Defendant Google LLC’s Disputed Pre-Trial Motions:
Google’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkts. 108, 110, 114) is
DENIED.
Google’s Motion to Stay Pending IPRs (Dkts. 127, 129, 131) is DENIED.
Google’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of All Asserted
Claims (Dkts. 142, 185, 199) is DENIED under Alice Step 1. The Court further HOLDS that all
asserted claims are directed to eligible subject matter under Alice Step 1 as a matter of law.
Accordingly, Google’s § 101 defense will not be tried.
Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willfulness (Dkts. 143, 177, 211) is
DENIED.
Google’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’770 and ’105
Patents (Dkts. 145, 172, 209) is DENIED. The Court further HOLDS that prosecution history
estoppel does not preclude Flyp from asserting infringement of the asserted ’770 and ’105 patent
claims under the doctrine of equivalents with respect to the “bridge telephone number” limitation.
Google’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’094, ’554,
and ’585 Patents (147, 174, 210) is DENIED.
Google’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Mr. Justin Lewis related to his reliance on
irrelevant advertising revenue (Dkts. 154, 178, 201) is DENIED; however, the Court ORDERS
in limine that neither Flyp, its counsel, nor any witnesses shall introduce, rely upon, or make
reference to the amount of Google’s total advertising revenue.
Google’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Mr. Justin Lewis related to his failure to apportion
(Dkts. 154, 178, 201) is DENIED.
SIGNED this 31st day of January, 2024.

2

________________________________
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3