I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 314

MOTION in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,

Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S
FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 through 403, Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P
Engine”) moves this Court to preclude any evidence of, reference to, or suggestion of the
following topics in the trial of this case:
1. the recently filed reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420;
2. recent offers and other negotiations for, and the 2011 purchase price of, the patent
portfolio that included the patents-in-suit;
3. the fee arrangement between I/P Engine and its counsel;
4. claim construction arguments that were not adopted by this Court;
5. claims that were previously included in this case but are no longer asserted, including
claims against Google Search and defendants AOL and IAC’s Ask Sponsored
Listings;
6. derogatory, inflammatory, confusing and irrelevant terms such as “patent troll,” “shell
corporation,” “paper patent” holder, or “non-practicing entity”;

1

7. any testimony or opinions about evidence or any other subject beyond the scope of
the discussion and analysis in their expert report;
8. any reference to discussions or correspondence between counsel that did not go to the
Court, including discovery disputes, negotiations, claims of privilege, or motions for
relief sought but not granted; and
9. any reference to courtroom observers or jury consultants.
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P
Engine, Inc.’s First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence, precluding any
evidence of, reference to, or suggestion of these topics is the most effective way to ensure that
this irrelevant and prejudicial information is not considered at trial and does not confuse the jury.
Dated: September 21, 2012

By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)
W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC
150 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
Dawn Rudenko Albert
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 21st day of September, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P
ENGINE, INC.’S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE INADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE, was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on the following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
[e-mail]
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
[e-mail]

/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood

3