`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`AT&T INC. ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 6:11-CV-96
`
`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 517 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 16947
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court are the following motions:
`
`ORDER
`
`• Defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility L.L.C.’s (“AT&T”) Motion to Exclude
`
`the Expert Opinions of Robert Mills (Docket No. 446);
`
`• AT&T’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Rose’s Opinions on Claim 25 (Docket No. 447); and
`
`• AT&T’s Motion for Continuance (Docket No. 509).
`
`On October 24, 2013, the Court heard oral arguments regarding these motions. Based on
`
`the parties’ briefings and arguments, the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART
`
`AT&T’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions of Robert Mills, with opinion to follow. The
`
`Court DENIES AT&T’s request to strike Mr. Mills’ report in its entirety, but GRANTS
`
`AT&T’s request to exclude the revenue sharing agreements Mr. Mills uses to assess the range of
`
`sharing percentages AT&T has agreed to in real-world negotiations.
`
`Further, the Court DENIES AT&T’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Rose’s Opinions on Claim
`
`25, with opinion to follow. In addition, the Court resolves the parties’ claim construction dispute
`
`concerning Claim 25 as follows:
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1018
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`
`
`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 517 Filed 10/25/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 16948
`
`(1) “first obtaining” step: the step of “first obtaining the first location information of said
`
`mobile station, the first location information determined by computational machinery when said
`
`corresponding location technique for using the first collection is supplied with an instance of said
`
`first collection” need not be performed in those circumstances in which the “first collection of
`
`measurements” is not available;
`
`(2) “second obtaining” step: the step of “second obtaining the second location
`
`information of said mobile station, the second location information determined by computational
`
`machinery when said corresponding location technique for receiving the second collection is
`
`supplied with an instance of said second collection” may but need not be performed in those
`
`circumstances in which the “first collection of measurements” is available.
`
` Further, the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART AT&T’s Motion for
`
`Continuance. The Court GRANTS AT&T’s request for a continuance, but DENIES the
`
`requested period of ninety days. Instead, the Docket Control Order is amended as follows:
`
`• AT&T SHALL serve its supplemental rebuttal expert reports on November 4, 2013;
`
`• AT&T SHALL file its brief in support of its motion regarding its 28 U.S.C. § 1498
`
`defense on November 4, 2013. TracBeam SHALL file a response by November 11,
`
`2013, AT&T SHALL file a reply by November 13, 2013, and TracBeam SHALL
`
`file a sur-reply by November 14, 2013;
`
`• Third-party discovery SHALL be completed by November 4, 2013, with any related
`
`depositions to be completed by November 28, 2013 and limited to two hours per
`
`side;
`
`• Pretrial conference is set on December 2, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.; and
`
`• Jury selection and trial are set on December 9, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`2
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1018
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
`
`
`
`Case 6:11-cv-00096-LED Document 517 Filed 10/25/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 16949
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`__________________________________
`LEONARD DAVIS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of October, 2013.
`
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson EXHIBIT 1018
`T-Mobile / TCS / Ericsson v. TracBeam
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
