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

Filing 315

Memorandum in Support re 314 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Download PDF
Exhibit 5  Case 2:07-cv-00371-RSP Document 571 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 20070 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC vs. GOOGLE INC., ET AL. § § § § § CASE NO. 2:07-CV-371-CE ORDER Before the court are the plaintiff Bright Response, LLC’s (“Bright Response”) motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 439, 453, 460); the defendants AOL, LLC’s, America Online, Inc.’s (collectively, “AOL”), Google, Inc.’s (“Google”), Yahoo! Inc.’s (“Yahoo”) joint motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 440-51, 457)); Google’s and AOL’s motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 454-55, 462, 464); and Yahoo’s motions in limine (Dkt. No. 476). The court has reviewed the parties’ respective motions in limine and makes the following rulings: Bright Response's Motions in Limine 1. DENIED. 2. WITHDRAWN. 3. WITHDRAWN. 4. DENIED. 5. DENIED. 6. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. 7. GRANTED as agreed. 8. GRANTED as agreed. 9. GRANTED as agreed. 10. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. Case 2:07-cv-00371-RSP Document 571 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 20071 11. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. 12. DENIED. 13. WITHDRAWN. 14. DENIED. 15. GRANTED. The defendants may not state that a particular product or service was formerly accused of infringement but now is no longer accused of infringement. The defendants may explain, however, that particular products or services are not accused of infringement. 16. GRANTED as agreed. 17. GRANTED. 18. DENIED. 19. GRANTED. 20. GRANTED. 21. GRANTED in part. The defendants may inform the jury that the PTO and its examiners have limited time to examine applications, but the defendants may not speculate about the time spent reviewing the ‘947 patent’s application or discuss the average time the PTO spends reviewing patent applications. Further, the parties may not state or imply the PTO examiners were incompetent. But the defendants may prove that the examiners failed to properly apply prior art to claims and may explain that jury is permitted to decide questions of validity even if the examiners had the same art before them. 22. GRANTED as agreed as to “patent trolls,” “pirates,” “playing the lawsuit lottery,” and “corporate shell game.” Otherwise, this motion is DENIED. 23. GRANTED. 2 Case 2:07-cv-00371-RSP Document 571 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 20072 24. GRANTED. 25. GRANTED. 26. GRANTED. 27. GRANTED. 28. GRANTED. 29. GRANTED. 30. GRANTED. 31. GRANTED. 32. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. 33. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. Defendants’ Joint Motions in Limine 1. DENIED. 2. DENIED. 3. DENIED. 4. DENIED. 5. GRANTED. 6. DENIED. 7. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. 8. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. 9. DENIED. 10. DENIED. 11. GRANTED as agreed. 3 Case 2:07-cv-00371-RSP Document 571 12. GRANTED as agreed. 13. Filed 07/30/10 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 20073 DENIED. Google’s and AOL’s Motions in Limine 1. GRANTED. The plaintiff may not use confidential Yahoo license agreements for computation of damages against Google. 2. GRANTED as to the overall size and revenue of the defendants. 3. GRANTED as to conduct during discovery. This motion in limine applies to all parties. 4. DENIED with respect to the expert damage analysis in Function Media v. Google; the plaintiff may use the royalty calculation from the Stanford-Google agreement. Otherwise, the motion is GRANTED. Yahoo’s Motions in Limine 1. GRANTED as to the overall size and revenue of the defendants. 2. GRANTED. The plaintiff may not use confidential Google license agreements for computation of damages against Yahoo. 3. CARRIED. The court will rule on this motion in limine prior to the start of evidence. 4. GRANTED. 5. GRANTED as agreed. 4 Case 2:07-cv-00371-RSP Document 571 Filed 07/30/10 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 20074 SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2010. ___________________________________ CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?