Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC

Filing 261

OMNIBUS ORDER ON THE PARTIES DISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE. 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 MOTIONS IN LIMINE
After considering briefing and holding oral arguments on January 17, 2024, the Court
hereby enters its rulings on the following disputed Motions in Limine:
Plaintiff Flypsi, Inc. (d/b/a Flyp)’s disputed Motions in Limine (Dkts. 223, 237):
● Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence
regarding inventorship or specific contributions of each inventor to the Patents-in-Suit
is DENIED.
● Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence that
Flyp has the burden to establish the changes in Google Voice is DENIED. Google
stipulates that it will not suggest to the jury that Flyp has the burden of proof on
Google’s affirmative defense of prior use; however, Google shall be permitted to elicit
testimony and argue that Flyp cannot identify changes to Google Voice during one or
more particular time periods.

1

● Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 8 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence
regarding the familial or personal relationships of Flyp employees or agents, or any
potential witness is GRANTED.
● Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 10 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence
regarding the circumstances of inventor Sunir Kochhar’s termination from Flyp is
GRANTED to the extent it is offered as character evidence regarding Mr. Peter Rinfret.
Defendant Google LLC’s disputed Motions in Limine (Dkts. 226, 235):
● Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1 seeking to preclude any evidence, testimony, or
argument regarding undisclosed facts underlying the Dialpad Agreement as to which
Flyp invoked privilege is DENIED.
● Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3 seeking to preclude any evidence, testimony, or
argument regarding the November 2015 meeting is GRANTED.
● Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4 seeking to preclude any evidence, testimony, or
argument suggesting that Google Voice was considered by the U.S. Patent Office in
connection with the Asserted Patents is DENIED.
SIGNED this 31st day of January, 2024.

________________________________
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2