Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 604 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 49201
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00453-RGA
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`The Court mostly resolved the motions in limine at the pre-trial conference on October
`
`19, 2018. This Order memorializes the rulings. No testimony or evidence contrary to these
`
`rulings may be introduced absent my express consent.
`
`Acceleration Bay's MIL #1 (D.I. 591-1 , Exh. HI) is GRANTED-IN-PART for the
`
`reasons which I expressed during the pre-trial conference. Its request to exclude Saralyn Smith' s
`
`testimony about the hypothetical negotiation date, or Ms. Lawton' s relying on a conversation
`
`with Saralyn Smith to establish the hypothetical negotiation date, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs
`
`motion to exclude Pat Griffith' s testimony about non-infringing alternatives for Call of Duty is
`
`GRANTED. Further review of the record confirms my initial view that Defendant did not
`
`sufficiently disclose Mr. Griffith as a witness who has knowledge of non-infringing alternatives.
`
`Plaintiff cannot be faulted for failing to ask Mr. Griffith about topics outside those disclosed by
`
`Defendant. Its request to exclude Dr. Kelly from relying upon the work of Bill Chinn is
`
`DENIED.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 604 Filed 10/23/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 49202
`
`Acceleration Bay' s MIL #2 (D.I. 591-1, Exh. HI) is GRANTED for the reasons which I
`
`expressed during the pre-trial conference, but is subject to reconsideration if Plaintiff opens the
`
`door during trial. Defendant may not refer to the role of Plaintiffs attorneys in the formation of
`
`Acceleration Bay or in the acquisition of the asserted patents. Defendant may not reference
`
`Plaintiffs litigation funding agreement with Hamilton Capital. Defendant may refer to Plaintiff
`
`as Plaintiff, Acceleration Bay, Acceleration, AB, the business, the company, the corporation,
`
`and/or the LLC. Defendant may not call Plaintiff anything else. Defendant may cross-examine
`
`Dr. Medvidovic about his fees and any interest in Acceleration Bay. Defendant may not refer to
`
`Dr. Medvidovic's role in providing opinions in connection with the financing for this litigation.
`
`Acceleration Bay' s MIL #3 (D.I. 591-1 , Exh. HI) is GRANTED-IN-PART for the
`
`reasons which I expressed during the pre-trial conference. Defendant may not introduce
`
`prosecution history to establish the scope of the patents. Defendant may not present a
`
`"practicing the prior art" defense to infringement. Defendant may not argue or imply that the
`
`patent is somehow inferior or defective based on the prior art. Defendant may, however,
`
`mention the dates that references were published and discuss the art in connection with, at least,
`
`damages.
`
`Activision's MIL #1 (D.I. 591-1 , Exh. H2) is DENIED-IN-PART and DISMISSED(cid:173)
`
`AS-MOOT-IN-PART for the reasons which I expressed during the pre-trial conference.
`
`Plaintiff may present the testimony of Mr. Bourassa regarding efforts to license the patents in the
`
`early 2000s. Plaintiff concedes that Defendant's alleged willfulness dates from the filing of the
`
`2015 complaint. The parties agree that Mr. Bourassa' s testimony is irrelevant to willfulness, and
`
`Plaintiff will not argue or imply that it is. Since there is no obviousness defense, no evidence
`
`will be presented about Sony' s employee, Mr. Van Datta, and copying.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 604 Filed 10/23/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 49203
`
`Activision' s MIL #2 (D.I. 591-1 , Exh. H2) is GRANTED for the reasons which I
`
`expressed during the pre-trial conference. Plaintiff may not reference the IPR petitions or the
`
`PT AB proceedings. Defendant may introduce the testimony of Mr. Terrano and testimony of
`
`Mr. Kegel for the purpose establishing non-infringing alternatives, and such testimony will not
`
`open the door for introduction of evidence about the IPR petitions or PT AB proceedings.
`
`Activision's MIL #3 (D.I. 591-1 , Exh. H2) is GRANTED with Plaintiffs consent, but
`
`subject to reconsideration if Defendant opens the door during trial.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this l'?J day of October 2018.
`
`~!~
`
`United States ffstrict Judge
`
`3
`
`