Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 19227
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 19228
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`MIL NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE PRIOR DAUBERT DECISIONS UNDER FED. R.
`EVID. 402 AND 403 ...........................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Daubert Decisions Are Irrelevant ...................................................................1
`
`Prior Daubert Decisions Are Unfairly Prejudicial...................................................2
`
`II.
`
`MIL NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE AGIS’S RELIANCE ON UNPRODUCED THIRD-
`PARTY LICENSES .............................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`AGIS Failed To Produce The Licenses During Fact Discovery ..............................3
`
`The Licenses Are Irrelevant .....................................................................................4
`
`III. MIL NO. 3 TO EXCLUDE INVENTOR’S TESTIMONY REGARDING
`PATENTS ............................................................................................................................4
`
`IV. MIL NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO PREJUDICIAL
`FINANCIAL AND OTHER DATA ....................................................................................7
`
`V.
`
`MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES OR FAILURES IN
`THE PARTIES’ PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR OTHER DISCOVERY ............8
`
`VI. MIL NO. 6 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO LITIGATIONS AND
`LICENSES NOT IMPLICATED BY THE PATENTS, RELATED PATENTS,
`OR DAMAGES MODELS IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION..........................................9
`
`VII. MIL NO. 7 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO IRRELEVANT ASPECTS
`OF APPLE’S BUSINESS, SUCH AS SUPPLIER, MANUFACTURER,
`ASSEMBLER INFORMATION, OR TAXES..................................................................11
`
`VIII. MIL NO. 8 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO ANY EXPERT’S PRIOR
`WORK WITH APPLE’S LAWYERS OR RETENTION BY DESMARAIS LLP ..........11
`
`IX. MIL NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE PRESENCE OR
`ABSENCE OF THE PARTIES’ EXECUTIVES AT TRIAL ...........................................12
`
`X.
`
`MIL NO. 10 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT APPLE
`HAS A HABIT OR MODUS OPERANDI OF STEALING OR COPYING ....................13
`
`XI. MIL NO. 11 TO EXCLUDE ANY ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE ANY
`BURDEN OF PROOF OR OTHER LEGAL STANDARD WITH
`REFERENCE TO OTHER AREAS OF LAW ..................................................................15
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 19229
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`Pages
`
`XII. MIL NO. 12 TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO AN EARLIER PRIORITY
`DATE BASED ON ALLEGED CONCEPTION AND/OR REDUCTION TO
`PRACTICE ........................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 19230
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Abstrax, Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-221-DF, 2009 WL 10677355 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2009) .............................. 10
`
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`Case No. 14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla.)....................................................................................... 9
`
`Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 13
`
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
`No. 9:13-cv-102, Dkt. 281 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2015) ........................................................ 7
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-01112-JRG, 2015 WL 11089489 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2015)................. 9, 11
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`Eolas Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`270 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Ill. 2003) ................................................................................ 14
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-279-CE, 2010 WL 276093 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2010) .................................... 7
`
`Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co.,
`797 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1986)......................................................................................... 10
`
`Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 4, 8
`
`Mobile Telecommcn’s Techs., LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-832, 2014 WL 5816106 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2014) ............................................ 8
`
`Montes v. Phelps Dodge Indus., Inc.,
`481 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Tex. 2006)............................................................................... 3
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`No. 04-cv-32 at 2 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2009) .................................................................... 11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 19231
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Pages
`
`Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-00068-JRG, 2013 WL 10253110 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2013) ...................... 14
`
`Peterson v. Willie,
`81 F.3d 1033 (11th Cir. 1996) .......................................................................................... 12
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-2024, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18010 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2016) ....................... 2
`
`Rainey v. Am. Forest and Paper Ass’n, Inc.,
`26 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 1998) .................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`Siplin v. Carnival Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-23741, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118893 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2018)..................... 2
`
`Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.,
`No. CIV A 306-cv-271, 2007 WL 4410370 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2007) ............................ 7
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................... 8
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`640 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.R.I. 2009), rev'd on other grounds, 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed.
`Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`United States v. Pipkins,
`528 F.2d 559 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 952, 96 S.Ct. 3177, 49 L.Ed.2d
`1191 (1976) ....................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Statutes
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 .......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 19232
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Pages
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 .......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803 .......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 19233
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1
`Ex. 2
`Ex. 3
`Ex. 4
`Ex. 5
`Ex. 6
`Ex. 7
`Ex. 8
`
`AGISTEXAS00307955
`Meyer Damages Report Excerpts
`Ratliff Damages Report Excerpts
`Alan Ratliff Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Malcolm Beyer Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Defendant’s Notice Of Deposition Of AGIS Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6)
`10/1/2018 Iturralde Email
`Michael Jaynes Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 19234
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moves in limine to preclude the introduction of certain
`
`argument, evidence, and/or testimony at trial, as discussed below.
`
`I.
`
`MIL No. 1 To Exclude Prior Daubert Decisions Under Fed. R. Evid. 402 and 403
`
`Daubert decisions from prior unrelated cases should be excluded for two reasons. First,
`
`prior Daubert decisions are irrelevant and therefore inadmissible under Rule 402. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`402 (“Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.”). Second, to the extent that Plaintiff AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC (“AGIS”) asserts that prior unrelated Daubert decisions have any probative
`
`value, it is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue
`
`delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”).
`
`A.
`
`Prior Daubert Decisions Are Irrelevant
`
`Prior Daubert decisions in unrelated cases are irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 402.
`
`Each case involves different factual issues and considerations surrounding the admissibility of
`
`expert opinions. Decisions regarding admissibility based on the facts of one case have no
`
`relevance to the admissibility or weight of an expert’s testimony in an unrelated case. See Kumho
`
`Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 158 (1999) (“Rule 702 grants the district judge the
`
`discretionary authority . . . to determine reliability in light of the particular facts and
`
`circumstances of the particular case.”).1
`
`Furthermore, courts decide Daubert challenges—not juries—so prior unrelated Daubert
`
`decisions are not for the jury to consider. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S.
`
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 19235
`
`
`579, 113 (1993). Indeed, here, AGIS did not file any Daubert challenge to any of Apple’s experts.
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior Daubert decisions should therefore be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Daubert Decisions Are Unfairly Prejudicial
`
`As explained above, prior Daubert decisions in unrelated cases have no probative value.
`
`To the extent AGIS asserts that prior unrelated Daubert decisions have any probative value, it is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Admission of prior Daubert decisions
`
`may cause the jury to cast doubt on the reliability of an expert’s conclusions in this case, even
`
`where there is no Daubert or any other challenge to the expert’s opinions. Indeed, where, as here,
`
`AGIS has not challenged Apple’s experts’ opinions, it would be improper to allow AGIS to imply
`
`that completely unrelated Daubert challenges in prior cases should weigh against an expert’s
`
`conclusions. See, e.g. , Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 13-cv-2024, 2016 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 18010, at *51-52 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2016) (excluding evidence of prior Daubert
`
`challenges for all expert witnesses); see also Siplin v. Carnival Corp., No. 17-cv-23741, 2018 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 118893, at *16-18 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2018).2
`
`
`2 In addition, permitting a party to raise an expert’s prior Daubert challenges in unrelated cases
`would waste time by creating a trial within a trial, requiring the parties to litigate the differences
`between the cases and why a prior decision should have no bearing on the merits of an expert’s
`opinions in this case. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 19236
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. MIL No. 2 To Exclude AGIS’s Reliance On Unproduced Third-Party Licenses
`
`Plaintiff’s damages expert, Alan Ratliff, relies on three third-party licenses (i.e., licensing
`
`not involving either AGIS or Apple)3 to attempt to demonstrate the appropriate reasonable royalty
`
`as a percentage of overall revenue. The three licenses and Mr. Ratliff’s corresponding opinions
`
`should be excluded for two reasons. First, the licenses were not produced during fact discovery.
`
`Second, the licenses are not relevant to any issue properly in the case.
`
`A.
`
`AGIS Failed To Produce The Licenses During Fact Discovery
`
`AGIS did not produce the three licenses during fact discovery. AGIS identified the licenses
`
`for the first time in Mr. Ratliff’s opening expert report on damages—after the close of fact
`
`discovery. Indeed, two of the licenses were never formally produced to Apple by AGIS. AGIS’s
`
`failure to timely identify or produce the licenses during discovery was not harmless because it
`
`deprived Apple of the opportunity to seek discovery surrounding the licenses or from the parties
`
`subject to the licenses—particularly where the actual terms are unavailable. See, e.g., Montes v.
`
`Phelps Dodge Indus., Inc., 481 F. Supp. 2d 700, 711 (W.D. Tex. 2006) (“Evidence that was not
`
`produced during discovery may not be admitted at trial unless the error is harmless”) (citing Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 37 and collected cases). AGIS should not be permitted to rely on late-produced
`
`documents for any issues on which it has the burden of proof.
`
`
`3 The licenses Mr. Ratliff relies on are not even arms’-length patent license agreements. The first,
`between non-parties Sybestma Research LLC and ATI Networks Inc., is merely a two-sentence
`statement about a license made in an SEC filing. Ex. 1 [AGISTEXAS00307955] at
`AGISTEXAS00307961; Ex. 2 [Meyer Rep.] ¶ 257. Without access to the actual license, Mr.
`Ratliff does not even know the complete terms of the license (or whether it even includes a patent
`license). Instead, Mr. Ratliff provides only unsupported assumptions about what its terms might
`be. Ex. 3 [Ratliff Rep.] ¶¶ 115-116. The second, between non-parties SkyLynx Communications,
`Inc. and Innovative Concepts & Mfg. Co., is similarly not a pure patent license. Ex. 2 [Meyer
`Rep. ¶ 267]. The third, between non-parties LunarEye and Celevoke, involved two parties with a
`common owner, and is therefore not an arm’s-length transaction. Ex. 2 [Meyer Rep.] ¶ 272.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 19237
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Licenses Are Irrelevant
`
`Mr. Ratliff uses the three third-party licenses only to support improper testimony regarding
`
`royalty rates as a percentage of overall revenue. Ex. 3 [Ratliff Rep.] ¶ 146. But Mr. Ratliff
`
`concedes that the allegedly patented features do not drive demand for the accused Apple devices.
`
` Accordingly, evidence linking a royalty rate to
`
`a percentage of overall revenue or profit is irrelevant and improper. LaserDynamics, Inc. v.
`
`Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67–68 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We reaffirm that in any case
`
`involving multi-component products, patentees may not calculate damages based on sales of the
`
`entire product, as opposed to the smallest salable patent-practicing unit, without showing that the
`
`demand for the entire product is attributable to the patented feature.”). Furthermore, Mr. Ratliff
`
`does not assert
`
`
`
` The licenses are
`
`therefore irrelevant to any issue properly in the case.4
`
`III. MIL No. 3 To Exclude Inventor’s Testimony Regarding Patents
`
`AGIS’s CEO and named inventor Malcolm Beyer, Jr. should not be permitted to testify
`
`regarding the alleged inventions, conception or reduction to practice, or purported benefits of the
`
`patents-in-suit. Mr. Beyer purposefully did not prepare on those topics prior to his deposition and
`
`AGIS should not be permitted to conduct a trial by ambush by presenting previously undisclosed
`
`evidence at trial.
`
`
`4 For similar reasons, Mr. Ratliff’s non-party licenses are prejudicial because they imply that the
`proper reasonable royalty in this case may be expressed as a percentage of Apple’s overall profits
`on the accused devices. But this is improper where—as here—the entire market value rule does
`not apply. Accordingly, for that additional reason, the three non-party licenses and any
`corresponding testimony should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 19238
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Beyer did not adequately prepare to testify regarding the asserted patents at his
`
`deposition and, therefore, he should not be permitted to present testimony on the patents for the
`
`first time at trial. Mr. Beyer is a named inventor on all five patents-in-suit. Ex. 5 [Beyer Tr.] at
`
`284:14-20. Mr. Beyer was also AGIS’s 30(b)(6) designee on topics including but not limited to
`
`(1) the technology covered by the patents-in-suit (topic no. 25), (2) conception and reduction to
`
`practice (topic no. 27), and (3) any alleged novelty or benefit of the patents-in-suit over the prior
`
`art (topic no. 38). Ex. 6 [Apple’s 30(b)(6) Notice] at 11-12; Ex. 7 [10/1/2018 Iturralde Email].
`
`Yet despite spending three days preparing for his deposition, Mr. Beyer did not read the patents-
`
`in-suit and was therefore unwilling and unable to answer related questions.
`
`
`
`
`
` To answer any questions
`
`about the asserted patents, Mr. Beyer insisted that he would need
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Mr. Beyer insisted on reading the entirety of every document he was shown regardless of the
`questions asked, thereby burning Apple’s deposition time. For example,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 19239
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) states that persons designated as corporate
`
`representatives “shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the organization.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). “By commissioning the designee as the voice of the corporation, the Rule
`
`obligates a corporate party to prepare its designee to be able to give binding answers in its behalf.”
`
`Rainey v. Am. Forest and Paper Ass’n, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 82, 94 (D.D.C. 1998) (internal
`
`quotations omitted). AGIS did not prepare Mr. Beyer to testify regarding the technology,
`
`conception and reduction to practice, or alleged novelty of the patents-in-suit. Mr. Beyer did not
`
`even read the asserted patents. Mr. Beyer cannot now be permitted to testify regarding those topics
`
`at trial. Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc., No. 9:13-cv-102, Dkt. 281 at 2 (E.D. Tex. May 18,
`
`2015) (“30(b)(6) witnesses generally may not attempt to testify about information that was
`
`
`6 Indeed, Mr. Beyer spent nearly an hour (6:53 PM to 7:39 PM) reading one patent towards the
`end of his deposition before he would answer questions about it. See
`Allowing Mr.
`AGIS’s counsel ended the deposition ten minutes later.
`Beyer to read each of the five patents-in-suit on the record would have deprived Apple of nearly
`five hours of deposition time.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 19240
`
`
`
`
`
`
`properly identified in a 30(b)(6) notice, asked about in a deposition, and not provided at the
`
`deposition.”); Super Future Equities, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., No. CIV A 306-
`
`cv-271, 2007 WL 4410370, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2007) (“Federal courts have interpreted this
`
`rule as prohibiting a 30(b)(6) representative from disclaiming the corporation’s knowledge of a
`
`subject at the deposition and later introducing evidence on that subject.”).
`
`Such gamesmanship should not be condoned, as it would encourage parties to under-
`
`prepare witnesses for deposition only to have them present testimony for the first time at trial. The
`
`very purpose of discovery is to avoid such trial by ambush. Super Future Equities, 2007 WL
`
`4410370, at *8 (“Rule 30(6)(b) ‘aims to prevent a corporate defendant from thwarting inquiries
`
`during discovery, then staging an ambush during a later phase of the case.’”) (quoting Rainey, 26
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 95).7
`
`AGIS’s strategy to avoid having the named inventor review the patents prior to his
`
`deposition should result in exclusion of any testimony regarding the patents-in-suit at trial.
`
`IV. MIL No. 4 To Exclude Any Reference To Prejudicial Financial And Other Data
`
`AGIS should be precluded from introducing evidence or argument concerning (1) Apple’s
`
`total revenues and profits from sales of the accused products, sales of non-accused products,
`
`foreign sales, or the entire market value of Apple’s accused sales; (2) Apple’s overall size, net
`
`worth, cash, stock value, or wealth generally; and (3) the financial ability of Apple to pay damages
`
`or royalties. Patent owners are generally prohibited from introducing evidence of an accused
`
`
`7 AGIS cannot now argue that Apple should have requested additional discovery to obtain the
`information. It was AGIS’s burden to properly prepare its witness. AGIS did not do so. AGIS
`must therefore suffer the consequences for that choice. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-279-CE, 2010 WL 276093, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2010) (rejecting argument that
`party seeking discovery should have sought other means of obtaining information when it became
`apparent 30(b)(6) designee was unprepared).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 19241
`
`
`
`
`
`
`infringer’s overall revenues or profits because presentation of such evidence to the jury may
`
`“artificially inflate the jury’s damages calculation beyond that which is ‘adequate to compensate
`
`for the infringement.’” LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 68 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (quoting Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); see
`
`also Uniloc, 632 F.3d at 1320 (“The disclosure that a company has made $19 billion dollars in
`
`revenue from an infringing product cannot help but skew the damages horizon for the jury,
`
`regardless of the contribution of the patented component to this revenue.”). Introducing evidence
`
`of Apple’s total revenues and profits at trial—or any similar data—will undoubtedly cause juror
`
`confusion and undue prejudice against Apple—the same concerns that the Federal Circuit
`
`identified in LaserDynamics and Uniloc. Additionally, any evidence on these topics would be
`
`irrelevant and a waste of time. See Uniloc, 632 F.3d at 1321 (stating that damages should be based
`
`value of patented technology not defendant’s ability to pay). Accordingly, any evidence or
`
`argument about Apple’s revenues, profits, size or wealth, and ability to pay is irrelevant and unduly
`
`prejudicial and should be excluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. See also, e.g., Mobile
`
`Telecommcn’s Techs., LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 12-cv-832, 2014 WL 5816106, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Nov. 7, 2014) (citing Uniloc, 632 F.3d 1292) (granting similar motion in limine).
`
`V. MIL No. 5 To Exclude Alleged Deficiencies Or Failures In The Parties’ Production
`Of Documents Or Other Discovery8
`
`The parties should be precluded from introducing evidence or argument concerning any
`
`alleged deficiencies or failures in the parties’ production of documents or other discovery because
`
`they are not relevant to the issues the jury must decide and any probative value is outweighed by
`
`the danger of unfair prejudice. The Court’s Docket Control Order provided the parties until
`
`
`8 Apple understands that AGIS is filing a motion in limine to exclude a limited set of discovery
`disputes, such as gripe letters, but Apple contends that it should not be so limited.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 19242
`
`
`October 26, 2018 to complete fact discovery and to file motions to compel discovery. Dkt. No.
`
`220. Accordingly, any disputes regarding discovery deficiencies should have been resolved
`
`according to the procedural schedule ordered by the Court, and the parties should be precluded
`
`
`
`
`
`from raising them at trial.
`
`The parties’ discovery disputes are also unduly prejudicial, as any reference to discovery
`
`disputes or deficiencies at trial would unfairly cause the jury to question the motivations of the
`
`parties based upon disputes between the parties’ counsel. Such references should therefore be
`
`precluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. See also, e.g., ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., No. 2:13-CV-01112-JRG, 2015 WL 11089489, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2015) (granting
`
`similar motion in limine).
`
`VI. MIL No. 6 To Exclude Any Reference To Litigations And Licenses Not Implicated
`By The Patents, Related Patents, Or Damages Models In The Present Litigation
`
`The parties should be precluded from introducing evidence or argument concerning
`
`litigations and licenses not implicated in the current case. The present litigation involves AGIS’s
`
`’970, ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 patents. Litigations involving the asserted patents or patents
`
`related to the asserted patents—e.g., Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla.)—are relevant. Similarly, with the exception of the unproduced
`
`third-party licenses that are the subject of Apple’s MIL No. 2 above, licenses relied upon by the
`
`parties’ experts and any litigation that resulted in such licenses (to the extent necessary to explain
`
`the context in which the licenses arose) are relevant. But evidence or argument regarding any
`
`litigations—e.g., Apple’s litigations against Samsung—or licenses outside of those categories is
`
`irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and poses a danger of wasting time. Unrelated litigations and
`
`licenses should be excluded for three reasons.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 19243
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`First, litigations and licenses not implicated by the issues in this case are, by definition,
`
`irrelevant. They have no probative value regarding, for example, the issues of infringement,
`
`invalidity, or damages, and should accordingly be excluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402.
`
`Second, to the extent AGIS asserts that unrelated litigations or licenses have any probative
`
`value, they should nevertheless be excluded because their “probative value is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of…unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Like many companies, Apple
`
`is and has been involved in other legal proceedings, including patent infringement cases, as well
`
`as patent licensing agreements. AGIS, however, may attempt to discuss other irrelevant cases or
`
`licenses at trial in an inappropriate effort to portray Apple negatively—for being accused of patent
`
`litigation in other cases, or to gain an advantage for itself by explaining that Apple has initiated
`
`litigation asserting its own patents. But none of the other cases or licenses concern the patents at
`
`issue here. Accordingly, the existence and histories of any other cases or licenses are irrelevant to
`
`any issue in this case.
`
`Third, allowing evidence or argument regarding unrelated litigations or licenses would be
`
`a “waste of time” under Rule 403 because it would “inject[] frolics and detours and would []
`
`require[] introduction of counter-evidence, all likely to create side issues that would [] unduly
`
`distract[] the jury from the main issues.” See Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co., 797 F.2d 1564, 1572-
`
`73 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (upholding exclusion of unrelated patent applications under Fed. R. Evid. 403).
`
`Accordingly, to keep the jury focused on relevant issues, save time, and avoid unnecessary
`
`prejudice to the parties, Apple respectfully requests that the Court preclude evidence or argument
`
`referencing any litigations or licenses not implicated by the patents-in-suit or the experts’ damages
`
`models in the present litigation. See Abstrax, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-221-DF, 2009 WL
`
`10677355, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2009) (granting similar motion in limine).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Filed 01/16/19 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 19244
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. MIL No. 7 To Exclude Any Reference To Irrelevant Aspects Of Apple’s Business,
`Such As Supplier, Manufacturer, Assembler Information, Or Taxes
`
`AGIS should be precluded from introducing evidence or argument referencing any aspects
`
`of Apple’s business that are not relevant to the present litigation, including (1) the location,
`
`working conditions, and labor relations relating to Apple or its suppliers, manufacturers, or
`
`assemblers, and (2) Apple’s taxes and tax payments. The court should exclude such information
`
`because it is not probative of any issue in the case. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Further, delving
`
`into Apple’s irrelevant business practices or tax strategies would only serve to distract from the
`
`relevant issues. For example, during the depositions of Apple witnesses, counsel for AGIS
`
`repeatedly asked questions regarding the foreign assembly of Apple’s products. See, e.g., Ex. 8
`
`[Jaynes Dep. Tr.] at 79:6-80:17; 102:15-24. That information has no bearing on the issues in this
`
`litigation and should therefore be excluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also, e.g., ContentGuard
`
`Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-01112-JRG, 2015 WL 11089489, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Aug. 24, 2015) (granting similar motion in limine); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd v. Beyond Innovation
`
`Tech., No. 04-cv-32 at 2 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2009) (D.I. 631) (granting motion in limine precluding
`
`defendant from “offering evidence relating to taxation”).
`
`VIII. MIL No. 8 To Exclude Any Reference To Any Expert’s Prior Work With Apple’s
`Lawyers Or Retention By Desmarais LLP
`
`AGIS should be precluded from introducing evidence or argument referencing Apple’s
`
`lawyers’ prior work with, or Desmarais LLP’s prior retention of, either party’s experts in unrelated
`
`matters that involved subject matter different from the subject matter of the present litigation. By
`
`this motion, Apple does not seek to preclude these individuals’ substantive testimony. Apple
`
`merely seeks to preclude testimony or argument regarding the experts’ prior work with or retention
`
`by the parties’ lawyers or law firms. Apple’s counsel’s prior work with or retention of experts in
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 298 Fi