Case 1:15-cv-00542-JFB-SRF Document 420 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 5 PagelD #: 26638
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`APPLE,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 15-542-JFB-SRF
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`aaeeeeeee
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTIONIN LIMINE NO. 1: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND
`PREJUDICIAL UNRELATED MATTERS INVOLVING APPLE
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6" Floor
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael D. Jay
`Bill Ward, Ph.D.
`Nandan R. Padmanabhan
`Micol Small
`Martin Ellison
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Tel: (810) 752-2400
`
`Steven Holtzman
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510).874 1000
`
`William A. Isaacson
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`1401 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 237-2727
`
`Dated: August 30, 2018
`Public Version Dated: September 6, 2018
`5910566 / 42622
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`: i
`
`|
`i
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00542-JFB-SRF Document 420 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 5 PagelD #: 26639
`
`I.
`
`MOTIONIN LIMINE NO. 1: EXCLUDE DRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL
`UNRELATED MATTERS INVOLVING APPLE.
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) requests that the Court preclude evidence or argument aboutalleged
`
`past misconduct and the alleged poor character of Apple or Steve Jobs, as well as any prior
`
`unrelatedlitigations, investigations or accusations-involving Apple or Mr. Jobs. For purposes of
`
`Apple’s motion, “unrelated litigations, investigations or accusations” meanspriorlitigations,
`
`investigations or accusations not between the parties, with the exception of impeachment and
`
`cross-examination evidence of witnesses’ statements from priorlitigations. As noted by this
`
`Court, “[a] motion in limine is appropriate for ‘evidentiary submissionsthat clearly ought not be
`399
`presented to the jury because they clearly would be inadmissible for any purpose.’” Hologic,
`
`Inc. et al. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., C.A. No. 15-1031-JFB-SRF, D.I. 452 at 1 (D. Del. July 9,
`
`2018) (citation omitted). That is precisely the situation here. These topics have noplaceinthis
`
`case and would serve only to prejudice Apple and mislead the jury. This purported evidenceis
`
`irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.
`
`A.
`
`Alleged Past Misconduct And The Alleged Poor Character Of Apple Or
`Steve Jobs Is Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial.
`
`Evolved Wireless, LLC (“Evolved”) and its experts should not be permitted to engage in
`
`“Apple bashing”at trial. One such example is a video, which Evolved produced just weeks ago
`
`(over a yearafter the fact discovery cutoff), of Apple’s co-founder, Steve Jobs, from-a PBS
`
`documentarytitled “Triumph.of the Nerds” (EVOLVED-0661401). In this decades-old video,
`
`Mr. Jobs discusses Apple’s success, and states “we have always been shameless aboutstealing
`
`great ideas.” To date, Evolved has not alleged that Apple stole-or copied anything pertainingto
`
`the claimsat issue.! The videois thus irrelevant under Rule 401 because it does not tend to make
`
`
`
`‘Nor could Evolved allege that Apple stole or copied anyaspect ofthe alleged inventionsofthe
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00542-JFB-SRF Document 420 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 5 PagelD #: 26640
`
`any fact “of consequence”in this case“more or less probable.” Evolved’s use of this video
`
`would be inflammatory and donesolely to portray Apple in a negative light. Evidence ofthis
`
`sort must be excluded becauseit is irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and devoid of probative value.
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403.
`B.
`Prior Unrelated Litigations, Investigations Or Accusations Involving Apple
`Or Mr. Jobs Are Irrelevant, Unfairly PrejudicialAnd May Confuse The
`Jury.
`
`Evolved should similarly not be permitted to present evidence or argument regarding
`
`unrelated litigations, investigations or accusations involving Apple or Steve Jobs, including
`
`Apple’s general actions, general litigation history or patterns, or reputation inthe market.
`
`Evidenceof past or pendinglitigation, either involving Apple ornot,isirrelevant under Rule 401
`
`becauseit does not tend to makeany fact “ofconsequence”in this case “moreor less probable.”
`
`There is no element of Evolved’s remaining causes of action that would tend to be proven or
`
`disproven by reference to other cases or proceedings involving different facts, different markets,
`
`different parties, and (in the case of foreign proceedings) different laws, rules of evidence, and
`
`standards of proof. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Thisis particularly true given that Evolved’s damages
`
`expert, Dr. Jonathan Putnam,has not relied on any Defendant’s unrelated litigations or
`
`|
`!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`investigations in forming his damages opinion.IZZ___
`
`
`
`|:|i|/\|ii
`
`ee 2s, Declaration ofNandan R.
`
`
`
`patents-in-suit— Evolved claimsthat the accused functionalities of the patents-in-suit are
`implemented entirely in the baseband chipsets Apple_purchases from Qualcomm,Inc. (D.I. 345-
`1, Ex. HH at 4.)
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00542-JFB-SRF Document 420 Filed 09/06/18 Page 4 of 5 PagelD #: 26641
`
`Padmanabhanin Support of Apple Inc.’s Motion Jn Limine (“Padmanabhan Decl.”), Ex. A at
`
`99:4-100:7.
`
`Given that Evolved’s experts do not rely on Apple’s unrelatedlitigations, investigations
`
`or accusations, the probative value of generalizations presented by Evolved regarding Apple’s
`
`litigation or licensing conduct would be greatly outweighed by the prejudice to Apple. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403. Furthermore, such evidence ofotherlitigation, administrative or legislative
`
`proceedings, and investigations is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which
`
`bars evidence of “other act[s] ... to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
`
`particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
`
`Finally, decisions of other courts, politicians, and lawmakers are hearsay because the
`
`opinions, factual findings, and legal conclusions they reach do notfall under the public records
`
`exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 802; Int'l Land Acquisitions, Inc. v. Fausto, 39 F.
`
`App’x 751, 756 (3d Cir. 2002) (judicial findings are inadmissible hearsay that cannot be
`
`corrected under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)).
`
`Courts in other Applelitigations around the country have reached the same conclusion,
`
`and excludedevidence of unrelated Apple litigations. Padmanabhan Decl., Ex. B, Emblaze Ltd.
`
`v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, ECF No. 519 at p. 3 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2014)
`
`(“Emblaze shall not offer evidence or argument regarding ... any prior unrelatedlitigations,
`investigations, accusations, or settlements involving Apple or Mr. Jobs.”); Padmanabhan Decl.,
`
`Ex. C, NetAirus Techs, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03257-JAK-E, ECF No.523 at p. 2
`(C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) (granting portion ofmotion in limine “as to other litigation”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`|
`|
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00542-JFB-SRF Document 420 Filed 09/06/18 Page 5 of 5 PagelD #: 26642
`
`Evolved should not be permitted to prejudice Apple or confuse the jury with evidence or
`
`argument about these (or any other) irrelevant and unrelated litigations, accusations and
`
`investigations. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`_/s/David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6" Floor
`1313 N. MarketStreet
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc.
`
`Michael D. Jay
`Bill Ward, Ph.D.
`Nandan R. Padmanabhan
`Micol Small
`Martin Ellison
`BOIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Tel: (310) 752-2400
`
`Steven Holtzman
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Tel: (510) 874 1000
`
`William A. Isaacson
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`1401 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 237-2727
`
`Dated: August 30, 2018
`Public Version Dated: September 6, 2018
`5910566 / 42622
`
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`
`|
`|
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`