`
`
`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