Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 20554
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-12 (DKT. NO. 293)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 20555
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE APPLE FROM INTRODUCING
`TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO AGIS’S FINANCES ...............................1 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF DEROGATORY,
`DISPARAGING, AND/OR PEJORATIVE REFERENCES ABOUT NON-
`PRACTICING ENTITIES INCLUDING AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC AND AGIS, INC. ........................................................................................................2 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 3 TO PRECLUDE DISPARAGING THE UNITED STATES
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ...........................................................................4 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 4 TO PRECLUDE APPLE FROM REFERENCING
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCEEDINGS OR SUCCESS RATES
`OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................5 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE APPLE FROM INTRODUCING
`EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY REGARDING UNRELATED LITIGATION
`INCLUDING VERDICTS ...................................................................................................6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Life360 Case Is Relevant ..................................................................................6 
`
`Evidence Regarding The Life360 Case Is Not Unfairly Prejudicial ........................8 
`
`VI. 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 6 TO PRECLUDE APPLE FROM INTRODUCING
`TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, OR ARGUMENT RELATED TO LITIGATION
`FUNDING............................................................................................................................9 
`
`VII.  AGIS’S MIL NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE APPLE FROM INTRODUCING
`TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, OR ARGUMENT RELATED TO POTENTIAL
`TARGETS FOR LITIGATION .........................................................................................10 
`
`VIII.  AGIS’S MIL NO. 8 TO PRECLUDE APPLE FROM INTRODUCING
`TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE RELATED TO AGIS’S INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY MONETIZATION OR LITIGATION EFFORTS UNRELATED TO
`THE CURRENT LAWSUIT .............................................................................................12 
`
`IX. 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE ANY REFERENCES, EVIDENCE,
`SUGGESTION, TESTIMONY OR ELICITATION OF ANY TESTIMONY BY
`APPLE COMPARING ANY ACCUSED PRODUCT TO ANY PURPORTED
`PRIOR ART DEVICE, A PRIOR ART PATENT, OR ANY OTHER PRIOR
`ART....................................................................................................................................13 
`
`X. 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 10 TO PRECLUDE ANY REFERENCE, EVIDENCE,
`SUGGESTION, TESTIMONY, OR ELICITATION OF ANY TESTIMONY BY
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 20556
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`Page
`
`APPLE REGARDING AGIS’S ELECTION OF PATENT CLAIMS TO
`STREAMLINE THIS LITIGATION ................................................................................14 
`
`XI. 
`
`AGIS’S MIL NO. 11 TO PRECLUDE ANY REFERENCE, EVIDENCE,
`SUGGESTION, TESTIMONY, OR ELICITATION OF ANY TESTIMONY BY
`APPLE THAT PLAINTIFF ENGAGED IN “FORUM SHOPPING” OR
`“LITIGATION ABUSE,” OR THAT THIS DISTRICT IS A POPULAR VENUE
`FOR PATENT HOLDERS ................................................................................................14 
`
`XII.  AGIS’S MIL NO. 12 TO PRECLUDE APPLE FROM INTRODUCING
`EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ART NOT INCLUDED IN APPLE’S FINAL
`ELECTION OF PRIOR ART ............................................................................................15 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 20557
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`Case No. 9:14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla.) ............................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4718963 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2016), report
`and recommendation adopted sub nom. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v. LG
`Elecs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4719791 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8,
`2016) ............................................................................................................................. 4, 13
`
`Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`No. 2:06-CV-72 DF, 2010 WL 11468934 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2010) .................................. 9
`
`Droplets, Inc. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-401-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 11515642 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2014)................. 14
`
`EVM Sys., LLC v. Rex Medical, L.P.,
`2015 WL 11089476 (E.D. Tex. June 10, 2015) .................................................................. 4
`
`Freeny v. Murphy Oil Corp.,
`No. 2:13-CV-791-RSP, 2015 WL 11108703 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2015) ......................... 15
`
`Garcia v. United States,
`No. SA-04-CR-425(17)-OG, 2010 WL 11613981 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2010) .................. 12
`
`Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified sub nom. Georgia-Pac. Corp. v.
`U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971) ................... 1, 2, 3, 12
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1, 86 S. Ct. 684, 15 L. Ed. 2d 545 (1966) ...................................................... 2, 11
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 10-1067-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2841 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015) ............................ 3
`
`Iovate Health Scis., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc.,
`No. 9:07-CV-46, 2008 WL 11344916 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) ..................................... 3
`
`Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.,
`5 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)........................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG, 2016 WL 8260584 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2016) .............................. 5
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 20558
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Pages
`
`Motile Optics, LLC v. SAVV Entm't Sys., Inc.,
`No. 6:15-CV-01118-RWS-JDL, 2017 WL 2901709 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10,
`2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:15-CV-01118RWS-JDL, 2017
`WL 2901715 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2017) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Glob. Connect,
`L.L.C., No. 6:12-CV-244-RWS, 2015 WL 11072170 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2015) ............ 15
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-621-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 7743510 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) .............. 5, 13
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Tech., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 627430 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2015) ........... 4, 15
`
`Respironics, Inc. v. Invacare Corp.,
`303 F. App’x 865 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................... 8
`
`Silver State Intellectual Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int'l, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-01578-GMN, 2015 WL 2152658 (D. Nev. May 7, 2015) ............................ 3
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 11089593 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2015) ............... 15
`
`Sprint Commc'ns Co., L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`No. 2017-2247, 2018 WL 6266319 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) ...................................... 7, 9
`
`Stafford v. Lamorak Ins. Co.,
`No. 18-60160, 2018 WL 5099628 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2018) ........................................... 7, 8
`
`United States v. D.K.G. Appaloosas, Inc.,
`630 F. Supp. 1540 (E.D. Tex. 1986), aff'd, 829 F.2d 532 (5th Cir. 1987) ........................ 12
`
`United States v. Del Rosario,
`No. 12 CR 81 KBF, 2012 WL 1710923 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2012) ................................. 12
`
`United States v. Khoa Dang Hoang,
`737 F. App’x 136 (4th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................... 12
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:12-CV-855, 2016 WL 4063802 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2016) ...................................... 9
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 20559
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`Pages
`
`Rules 
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ............................................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 20560
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`Ex. 1
`Ex. 2
`Ex. 3
`
`Ex. 4
`Ex. 5
`Ex. 6
`Ex. 7
`Ex. 8
`Ex. 9
`
`Ex. 10
`
`Ex. 11
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Ratliff Damages Report Excerpts (“Ratliff Rep.”)
`Blackwell Dep. Tr. Excerpts (“Blackwell Dep. Tr.”)
`AGIS’s 3rd Supplemental Responses to Apple’s Second Set of
`Interrogatories
`Beyer Dep. Tr. Excerpts (“Beyer Dep. Tr.”)
`Meyer Damages Report Excerpts (“Meyer Rep.”)
`Clark Opening Report Excerpts (“Clark Openn. Rep.”)
`Clark Rebuttal Report Excerpts (“Clark Reb. Rep.”)
`AGIS’s Rebuttal Witness List
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc. Day 1 Trial
`Transcript Excerpts
`AGIS’s 6th Supplemental Responses to Apple’s First Set of
`Interrogatories Excerpts
`AGIS Statement of Stipulated Facts (“Litigation Funding Stip.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 20561
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) files its opposition to Plaintiff AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC’s (“AGIS”) motions in limine (Dkt. No. 293). For the reasons discussed below,
`
`Apple respectfully requests that the Court deny AGIS’s motions in limine to the extent opposed.1
`
`I.
`
`AGIS’s MIL No. 1 To Preclude Apple From Introducing Testimony Or Evidence
`Related To AGIS’s Finances
`
`Without citing any supporting case law, AGIS seeks to exclude as irrelevant all evidence
`
`regarding the finances of AGIS and its parent and sister companies, AGIS Holdings, Inc. and
`
`AGIS, Inc., respectively (referred to collectively as “AGIS”). AGIS primarily seeks to preclude
`
`Apple’s damages expert from considering AGIS’s financial state during the hypothetical
`
`negotiation. AGIS’s motion should be denied for two reasons.
`
`First, evidence regarding AGIS’s finances is relevant to damages—including at least
`
`Georgia-Pacific factors 1 and 12. For example, AGIS’s financial state—and, relatedly, the
`
`comparative bargaining power of the parties—is relevant because it demonstrates what AGIS
`
`would have been willing to accept during the hypothetical negotiation.2 Georgia-Pac. Corp. v.
`
`U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1121 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified sub nom. Georgia-Pac.
`
`Corp. v. U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971) (outcome of the
`
`hypothetical negotiation would “depend upon such factors as their relative bargaining strength”).
`
`As another example, valuations of AGIS reflect the value of the asserted patents—particularly
`
`where, as here,
`
`
`
`
`1 For each category of evidence that AGIS seeks to exclude, Apple should be permitted to introduce
`such evidence or testimony for impeachment to the extent AGIS opens the door by taking
`inconsistent positions at trial.
`
` The hypothetical negotiation would have taken place in 2012 between AGIS, Inc. and Apple
`(before AGIS Software Development LLC was created). Ex. 1 [Ratliff Rep.] ¶ 45, n. 78.
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 20562
`
`
`
`
`
` As yet another example, AGIS’s finances are relevant to the alleged success or failure
`
`of AGIS, Inc.’s only product, LifeRing (and its derivatives), which AGIS contends practices the
`
`asserted patents.
`
`
`
`
`
` Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood
`
`Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1121 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified sub nom. Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S.
`
`Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971) (outcome of the hypothetical
`
`negotiation would “depend upon such factors as . . . the commercial past performance of the
`
`invention in terms of public acceptance and profits”). Thus, the parties should be permitted to
`
`discuss AGIS’s finances as part of the damages analysis.
`
`Second, AGIS’s finances—particularly the revenues and profits related to LifeRing—are
`
`relevant to invalidity because they demonstrate indicia of obviousness. AGIS contends that
`
`LifeRing practices the asserted patents. Therefore, the commercial success or failure of LifeRing
`
`reflects the commercial success or failure of the alleged inventions. Graham v. John Deere Co. of
`
`Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18, 86 S. Ct. 684, 694, 15 L. Ed. 2d 545 (1966) (“Such secondary
`
`considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might
`
`be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to
`
`be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy.”).3
`
`II.
`
`AGIS’s MIL No. 2 To Preclude The Use Of Derogatory, Disparaging, And/Or
`Pejorative References About Non-Practicing Entities Including AGIS Software
`Development LLC And AGIS, Inc.
`
`Apple does not oppose AGIS’s motion insofar as it seeks to exclude the following terms:
`
`
`3 Aside from the conclusory recitation of the standard for exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence
`403, AGIS fails to explain how the probative value of its finances (including the finances of AGIS,
`Inc.) are substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 20563
`
`
`
`
`(1) “patent troll”; (2) “pirate”; (3) “patent assertion entity”; (4) “non-practicing entity”; (5) “NPE”;
`
`(6) “shell corporation”; (7) “privateer”; (8) “bounty hunter”; (9) “bandit”; (10) “paper patent”; (11)
`
`“stick up”; (12) “shakedown”; (13) “playing the lawsuit lottery”; (14) “corporate shell game”; (15)
`
`“toll collector”; (16) “litigious”; and their equivalents. But Apple opposes the motion to the extent
`
`it seeks to exclude purely factual descriptions about AGIS and its business.
`
` In addition, AGIS concedes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Courts have found that facts related to a party’s products and business model are relevant
`
`at least to damages. See Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1970), mod. and aff’d, 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 870 (1971);
`
`see also Iovate Health Scis., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc., No. 9:07-CV-
`
`46, 2008 WL 11344916, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) (whether the parties are competitors
`
`“potentially changes how much a willing licensor would have paid for a license on the patents-in-
`
`suit under the Georgia-Pacific factors”); Silver State Intellectual Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int'l, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:11-CV-01578-GMN, 2015 WL 2152658, at *2 (D. Nev. May 7, 2015) (“[T]he Court finds
`
`that describing [Plaintiff] as ‘a company that doesn't make anything,’ or ‘a company that doesn't
`
`sell anything’ is a true and correct description of [Plaintiff's] business model and is relevant to the
`
`issues of damages”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., No. 10-1067-LPS, 2015 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 2841, at *3 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015) (“[Defendant] is permitted to present argument and
`
`evidence that [Plaintiff] does not practice the patents-in-suit, which is relevant to damages — and
`
`with respect to damages, the concerns of Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (‘Rule 403’) do not
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 20564
`
`
`
`
`substantially outweigh the probative value of this evidence.”).
`
`Courts have routinely drawn a distinction between excluding “derogatory, disparaging,
`
`and/or pejorative references” while allowing “factual statements, including the structure of
`
`[Plaintiff’s] business model.” EVM Sys., LLC v. Rex Medical, L.P., 2015 WL 11089476, *2 (E.D.
`
`Tex. June 10, 2015). For example, this Court has excluded terms like “patent troll,” “troll,”
`
`“patent pirate,” and “shell company,” while permitting factual statements like “company that
`
`doesn't make anything.” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-911-
`
`JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4718963, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2016), report and recommendation
`
`adopted sub nom. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-911-JRG-RSP,
`
`2016 WL 4719791 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2016). In fact, the only case that AGIS cites to support
`
`excluding statements like “company that doesn’t make anything” and “company that doesn’t sell
`
`anything” specifically allowed Defendant to argue “that Plaintiff is a patent assertion entity that
`
`does not manufacture or sell products in this field” and that “Plaintiff [is] an entity that licenses
`
`and litigates.” Rembrandt Wireless Tech., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-
`
`RSP, 2015 WL 627430, *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2015).4
`
`III. AGIS’s MIL No. 3 To Preclude Disparaging The United States Patent And
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`Apple agrees that the parties should not disparage the USPTO or its examiners. But Apple
`
`should be permitted to introduce evidence and argument consistent with the instructional video
`
`that the Court routinely shows to jurors. For example, Apple should be allowed to argue that: (1)
`
`“there may be facts or arguments that the examiner did not consider, such as prior art that was not
`
`
`4 Granting AGIS’s motion in full will also introduce significant uncertainty into the trial
`proceedings and will create the potential for interruptions any time the parties discuss the business
`of AGIS or AGIS, Inc.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 20565
`
`
`
`
`located by the PTO or provided by the applicant,” including introducing evidence that a particular
`
`prior art reference was not considered during prosecution of an asserted patent; (2) “there is, of
`
`course, the possibility that mistakes were made or important information overlooked” during
`
`prosecution of the patents; (3) “[e]xaminers have a lot of work to do, and no process is perfect”;
`
`(4) “unlike a court proceeding, prosecution of a patent application takes place without input from
`
`people who might later be accused of infringement, so it is important that we provide a chance for
`
`someone who is accused of infringement to challenge the patent in court”; and (5) similar
`
`statements. See Federal Judicial Center Video, The Patent Process: An Overview For Jurors (Jan.
`
`2013), https://www.fjc.gov/publications/patent-process-overview-jurors.
`
`Such statements are central to an invalidity defense. Parties should be allowed to argue
`
`that for one of the above-listed reasons, the USPTO mistakenly granted the patents-in-suit and the
`
`jury should correct that mistake. If such statements were improper, defendants would not be able
`
`to persuasively argue invalidity (and courts would not show the Federal Judicial Center’s video to
`
`the jury). Accordingly, such statements should not be excluded. See, e.g., Parthenon Unified
`
`Memory Architecture LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:15-CV-621-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 7743510, at *1
`
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) (allowing the defendant to “mak[e] generalizations that the examiner
`
`was in error or on general matters regarding invalidity”).
`
`Furthermore, AGIS’s motion should be applied reciprocally. Therefore, the Court should
`
`similarly preclude any evidence or argument that bolsters the USPTO or its examiners. See, e.g.,
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG, 2016 WL
`
`8260584, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2016) (ordering that the parties shall not bolster the USPTO).
`
`IV. AGIS’s MIL No. 4 To Preclude Apple From Referencing Pending Inter Partes
`Review Proceedings Or Success Rates Of Such Proceedings
`
`Apple does not oppose AGIS’s motion as long as any exclusion is bilateral. Apple should
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 20566
`
`
`
`
`be permitted to use testimony or declarations from inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings for
`
`impeachment purposes, but agrees not to identify the impeaching information as originating from
`
`an IPR proceeding. The Court should similarly preclude AGIS from referencing the pending IPR
`
`proceedings or the success rate of those proceedings.
`
`V.
`
`AGIS’s MIL No. 5 To Preclude Apple From Introducing Evidence Or Testimony
`Regarding Unrelated Litigation Including Verdicts
`
`AGIS seeks a blanket exclusion of any evidence or testimony regarding prior litigations.
`
`In particular, AGIS seeks to exclude as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial any evidence or
`
`testimony regarding AGIS, Inc.’s prior litigation against Life360, Inc. Advanced Ground
`
`Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla.) (the “Life360
`
`case”).
`
`A.
`
`The Life360 Case Is Relevant
`
`The Life360 case shares many similarities with this case: (1) the Life360 case involved
`
`AGIS’s U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (“the ’728 Patent”), to which the asserted patents in this case
`
`purport to claim priority; (2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` and (3) at least two of AGIS’s expected testifying witnesses in
`
`this case previously testified in the Life360 case. Compare Ex. 8 [AGIS’s Rebuttal Witness List,
`
`Jan. 7, 2019] at 1 with Ex. 9 [Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc. Case
`
`No. 9:14-cv-80651, Dkt. No. 181 [Day 1 Trial Transcript]], at 97-134 (testimony of Malcolm K.
`
`Beyer, Jr.) and 134-179 (testimony of Sandel Blackwell). Accordingly, evidence regarding the
`
`Life360 case is relevant and admissible for at least three reasons.
`
`First, evidence and testimony from the Life360 case is admissible for impeachment to the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 20567
`
`
`
`
`extent AGIS takes inconsistent positions regarding its patents, the LifeRing product, and/or the
`
`Life360 product. Stafford v. Lamorak Ins. Co., No. 18-60160, 2018 WL 5099628, at *3 (5th Cir.
`
`Oct. 18, 2018) (noting that the court below “did not impose a blanket ban on mentioning the second
`
`trial. It permitted the impeachment of Stafford based on any inconsistent statements made in the
`
`other litigation.”).
`
`Second, the Life360 case is relevant to damages because knowledge of the outcome of the
`
`Life360 case “would have influenced the outcome of a hypothetical negotiation.” See, e.g., Sprint
`
`Commc'ns Co., L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 2017-2247, 2018 WL 6266319, at *2 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) (allowing evidence of prior verdict).5
`
`Third, the Life360 case is relevant to invalidity. During the Life360 case, AGIS, Inc.’s
`
`witnesses testified regarding the functionality and availability of AGIS’s LifeRing product. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 9 [Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-80651,
`
`Dkt. No. 181 [Day 1 Trial Transcript]], at 114:20-115:6; 117:14-119:13; 141:23-146:22; 147:8-
`
`148:4; 159:13-22; 168:17-172:12. Apple contends that LifeRing invalidates certain claims of the
`
`asserted patents. Therefore, evidence and testimony regarding LifeRing from the Life360 case is
`
`relevant here. In addition, AGIS cites to its ’728 patent—which was asserted in the Life360 case—
`
`as purportedly providing written description support for each of the patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`
`
` Therefore, evidence and testimony from the Life360 case regarding the ’728
`
`patent disclosure is relevant here.
`
`None of the cases AGIS cites support the broad exclusion that AGIS seeks. Instead, those
`
`
`5 AGIS’s damages expert concedes that the hypothetical negotiation would have involved Apple
`and AGIS, Inc., making information about AGIS, Inc. relevant to this case. Ex. 1 [Ratliff Rep.] ¶
`45, n. 78.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 20568
`
`
`
`
`cases hold only that specific facts warrant exclusion of particular types of evidence. See, e.g.,
`
`Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc., 5 F.3d 1557, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (finding no reversible error
`
`in excluding a prior judicial opinion that was expected to be used as fact evidence and that included
`
`“another judge’s statements on the law”); Respironics, Inc. v. Invacare Corp., 303 F. App’x 865,
`
`877 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding no reversible error in excluding prior noninfringement expert report
`
`where evidence had been introduced to show that the report did not address a “critical difference
`
`for purposes of infringement” present in the second litigation); Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding no reversible error in excluding
`
`evidence that would raise the issue of a prior litigation where the appealing party had already
`
`sought to exclude references to the same litigation); Stafford v. Lamorak Ins. Co., No. 18-60160,
`
`2018 WL 5099628, at *3 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2018) (finding no reversible error in exclusion of
`
`evidence that Plaintiff had filed a previous litigation where there was a risk that the jury would be
`
`led “to improperly believe that [Plaintiff] would be well-compensated for his injuries regardless
`
`of its verdict.”). Thus, the broad exclusion sought by AGIS is improper and objections to evidence
`
`or testimony regarding prior litigations should be addressed as they arise.
`
`B.
`
`Evidence Regarding The Life360 Case Is Not Unfairly Prejudicial
`
`The only testimony or evidence from the Life360 case that AGIS specifically identifies as
`
`prejudicial is the jury verdict—which was adverse to AGIS and ultimately resulted in an award of
`
`attorneys’ fees to Life360. Dkt. No. 293 [AGIS MILs], at 8-9; Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Life360, Inc., No. 14-CV-80651, 2015 WL 11401854, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2015), aff'd, 681
`
`F. App’x 975 (Fed. Cir. 2017). But where the present case and a prior litigation include as many
`
`similarities as here—related patents, the same software applications, and the same witnesses—the
`
`relevance outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice so long as only the relevant facts are presented
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 20569
`
`
`
`
`to the jury to mitigate any potential prejudice. Sprint Commc'ns Co., L.P. v. Time Warner Cable,
`
`Inc., No. 2017-2247, 2018 WL 6266319, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) (finding that even
`
`evidence of a prior verdict is admissible if “it is relevant for some legitimate purpose”). Therefore,
`
`AGIS’s overly broad request to exclude all evidence regarding the Life360 case should be denied.
`
`The cases AGIS cites to support its claim of prejudice are distinguishable. For example,
`
`in VirnetX, the court initially allowed testimony regarding a prior litigation but later excluded such
`
`testimony after the parties went overboard by repeatedly referencing the prior litigation—over 50
`
`times—resulting in prejudice. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:12-CV-855, 2016 WL 4063802, at
`
`*7 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2016) (finding that the “more than 50 [references to the prior litigation],
`
`many of which were either redundant or gratuitous—tipped the balance towards unfairly
`
`prejudicing Apple.”). In Datatreasury, the Court excluded consent judgments—not all references
`
`to prior litigations—because the judgments were largely cumulative of evidence that had already
`
`been deemed admissible. Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 2:06-CV-72 DF, 2010
`
`WL 11468934, at *18 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2010) (“Given the Court's finding that many of the
`
`litigation-related licenses are admissible, any additional probative value of the consent judgments
`
`is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice.”). And in Mendenhall, the court
`
`excluded a judicial opinion from a prior litigation because the court determined that the opinion
`
`was not proper factual evidence and because the opinion risked confusing the jury by exposing the
`
`jury to “another judge’s statements on the law.” Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc., 5 F.3d 1557,
`
`1575 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`VI. AGIS’s MIL No. 6 To Preclude Apple From Introducing Testimony, Evidence, Or
`Argument Related To Litigation Funding
`
`AGIS seeks to preclude Apple from introducing any evidence related to “litigation funding,
`
`fees incurred by either party, the retention or fee agreements of any party’s counsel in this case,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 20570
`
`
`
`
`and any fees obtained or potentially obtained by counsel as a result of this case.” Dkt. No. 293 at
`
`10. Apple agrees to refrain from introducing such evidence with two exceptions.
`
`First, to the extent that AGIS attempts to gain the sympathy of the jury by implying that
`
`the relative size of the parties justifies a damages award,
`
`
`
` For example, if AGIS’s witnesses testify regarding any financial or other
`
`hardships related to AGIS’s size—or any issues tending to portray AGIS as an “underdog”—Apple
`
`should be permitted to introduce evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, Apple should be permitted to introduce evidence of AGIS’s litigation funding to
`
`rebut AGIS’s request for a permanent injunction. To determine whether it is in the public’s interest
`
`to grant an injunction, the Court should consider who stands to benefit. Here, a permanent
`
`injunction is merely a pretext to extract an inflated settlement from Apple
`
`
`
`should be allowed to introduce
`
`
`
` Therefore, Apple
`
`
`
`VII. AGIS’s MIL No. 7 To Preclude Apple From Introducing Testimony, Evidence, Or
`Argument Related To Potential Targets For Litigation
`
`AGIS seeks to exclude testimony, evidence, and argument related to “potential targets for
`
`litigation” based on its conclusory claim that such information is irrelevant and “would mislead
`
`the jury into resolving this case based on factors other than the evidence and the law.” Dkt. No.
`
`
`6 In the sole case AGIS cites where the court excluded references to litigation funding, the plaintiff
`appears to have dropped its request for a permanent injunction well before trial, eliminating the
`need for the Court to consider the litigation funder in balancing the public interest. See SSL
`Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-158-JRG, Dkt. No. 47 [Second Amended
`Complaint] at 10-11.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 336 Filed 01/30/19 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 20571
`
`
`
`
`293 at 10-11. To the extent AGIS only seeks to exclude testimony regarding parties AGIS has
`
`internally considered suing for patent infringement but did not ultimately sue, Apple agrees not to
`
`introduce such evidence in this case. But Apple should be permitted to introduce evidence of (1)
`
`parties to whom AGIS has offered to license its patents (including but not limited to the patents-
`
`in-suit) and (2) parties whom AGIS has sued for patent infringement. Such testimony is relevant
`
`and is not unfairly prejudicial for four reasons.
`
`First, evidence of parties whom AGIS has sued or has offered to license its patents is
`
`relevant to damages. For example, AGIS’s willingness to license its patents shows that AGIS is a
`
`willing licensor, which the parties would have considered in a hypothetical negotiation under
`
`Georgia-Pacific factors 1, 4, and 12.
`
`Second, A