Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 19585
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-CV-0514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT HTC CORPORATION’S RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 19586
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`
`
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE AGIS’S FINANCES .............................................. 1
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE PEJORATIVE TERMS ......................................... 2
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 3 TO PRECLUDE USPTO DISPARAGEMENT ................................ 3
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 4 TO PRECLUDE REFERENCING IPRS .......................................... 4
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE LIFE360 CASE...................................................... 4
`A.
`The Life360 Case is Relevant ................................................................................ 4
`B.
`Evidence Regarding the Life360 Case Is Not Unfairly Prejudicial ....................... 7
`
`
`
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE PRIOR ART COMPARISON ............................. 11
`IX.
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 10 TO PRECLUDE ELECTION OF CLAIMS ................................. 12
`X.
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 11 TO PRECLUDE FORUM SHOPPING Commentary................... 12
`XI.
`XII. AGIS’s MIL NO. 12 TO PRECLUDE PRIOR ART ...................................................... 13
`XIII. AGIS’s MIL NO. 13 TO PRECLUDE DISCOVERY DISPUTES ................................. 13
`XIV. AGIS’s MIL NO. 14 PRECLUDE FBCB2 TESTIMONY ............................................. 13
`XV. AGIS’s MIL NO. 15 TO PRECLUDE DR. SIEGEL ...................................................... 14
`XVI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 19587
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................14
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-80651, 2015 WL 11401854 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2015), aff’d, 681 F.
`App’x 975 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................................7
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.,
`782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................5
`
`Better Mouse Company, LLC v. Steelseries APS, et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-00198-RSP, Dkt. No. 310 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2016) ...................................15
`
`Brumley Estate v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.,
`704 F.2d 1351 (5th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Coleman Motor Co. v. Chrysler Corp.,
`525 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1975) ....................................................................................................8
`
`Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:13- CV-01112-JRG, 2015 WL 12915561 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2015).............................11
`
`Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`No. 2:06-CV-72 DF, 2010 WL 11468934 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2010) ....................................7, 8
`
`Droplets, Inc. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-cv-401-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 11515642 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2014) .........................12
`
`Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp.,
`No. 6:11-cv-00201-JRG, 2017 WL 2773944 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2017) ..................................2
`
`Freeny v. Murphy Oil Corp.,
`No. 2:13-CV-791-RSP, 2015 WL 11108703 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2015) ................................13
`
`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, 9, 10
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................................................................2, 9
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. RyMed Techs., Inc.,
`752 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Del. 2010) ...........................................................................................7
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 19588
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp, et al.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00980-JRG (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2018) ..................................................................2
`
`Iovate Health Scis., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc.,
`No. 9:07-CV-46, 2008 WL 11344916 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2008) ............................................2
`
`Life360, Inc. Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`Case No. 9:14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla.) ..............................................................................4, 5, 6, 7
`
`Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.,
`5 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..................................................................................................6, 8
`
`Mobile Telecomm. Techs., LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-946-JRG, 2016 WL 8260584 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2016) .......................................4
`
`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-01118-RWS-JDL, 2017
`WL 2901715 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2017). ...............................................................................9, 10
`
`Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Glob. Connect, L.L.C.,
`No. 6:12-CV-244-RWS, 2015 WL 11072170 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2015) ................................13
`
`Nunn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`No. 3:08-CV-1486-D, 2010 WL 2540754 (N.D. Tex. June 22, 2010) ....................................14
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture, LLC v Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 246 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) ..................................2
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-621-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 7743510 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) .......................3, 11
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:13-CV-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 627430 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2015) ..................9, 11, 12
`
`Respironics, Inc. v. Invacare Corp.,
`303 F. App’x 865 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................6
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................6
`
`Silver State Intellectual Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-01578-GMN, 2015 WL 2152658 (D. Nev. May 7, 2015) ...................................2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 19589
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 11089593 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2015) ......................13
`
`Sting Soccer Operations Grp. LP v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. 4:15-CV-127, 2016 WL 4094980(E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2016) ............................................14
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`No. 2017-2247, 2018 WL 6266319 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2018) .............................................5, 7
`
`SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.,
`No. 2:08-cv-158-JRG, Dkt. No. 47 ............................................................................................9
`
`St. Lawrence Commnc’ns v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 2:15-CV 349-JRG, Dkt. No. 458, Slip. Op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2017) ...........................11
`
`Stafford v. Lamorak Ins. Co.,
`No. 18-60160, 2018 WL 5099628 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2018) ..................................................5, 6
`
`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) ..............................10
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:12-CV-855, 2016 WL 4063802, *7 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2016) .......................................7
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 WL 7177541, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2016) .............................................................14
`
`ZiiLabs Inc., LTD. v. Samsung Electronics Co. LTD., et al.,
`Case No. 2:14-cv-00203-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 524 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2015
`(stating same).) .....................................................................................................................9, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 19590
`
`
`Defendant HTC Corporation files this opposition to AGIS’s motions in limine (Dkt.
`
`No. 157). For the follow reasons, AGIS’s motions should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE AGIS’S FINANCES
`
`AGIS’ motion is overly-broad and one-sided, so much so that if granted it would
`
`constitute unfair prejudice to HTC Corp. and go against applicable case law. AGIS itself has put
`
`its size and profitability into play in its damages analysis:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully, AGIS’ motion is an end-run
`
`attempt to eviscerate HTC’s damages case and should be denied.
`
`AGIS’s finances are highly relevant and admissible. AGIS’ finances are relevant to HTC
`
`Corp.’s damages arguments because they demonstrate what AGIS would have been willing to
`
`accept during the hypothetical negotiation. See, e.g., 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 19591
`
`
`
`
`negotiation would “depend upon such factors as their relative bargaining strength”). AGIS’s
`
`finances are also relevant to the hypothetical negotiation because they are related to the alleged
`
`success or failure of
`
`
`
` Id. at 1121 (hypothetical negotiation would “depend upon such factors as . . .
`
`the commercial past performance of the invention in terms of … profits”). Additionally, the
`
`commercial success or failure of LifeRing reflects the commercial success or failure of the
`
`alleged invention and is relevant to indicia of obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of
`
`Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The parties should be permitted to discuss AGIS’s
`
`finances as part of the damages and validity analysis.
`
`II.
`
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE PEJORATIVE TERMS
`
`HTC Corp. will not use or invoke pejorative terms, but AGIS’s motion goes too far.
`
`Some terms referenced are non-pejorative, e.g. “patent assertion entity,” “non-practicing entity,”
`
`and “NPE” and are allowed by local case-law. Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp.,
`
`6:11-cv-00201-JRG, 2017 WL 2773944, *1 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2017) (allowing “patent
`
`assertion entity” and “non-practicing entity,” but not pejorative terms); see also Transcript of
`
`Pretrial Hearing at 103-104, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp, et al., Civ. A. No. 2:16-
`
`cv-00980-JRG (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2018); Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture, LLC v Apple
`
`Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 246 at 1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016).
`
`AGIS should not be allowed to shield the jury from facts regarding who it is and what it
`
`does and does not do. These are facts that, when unembellished, the jury should be able to hear.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Facts relating to a party’s line of business are relevant to damages. See
`
`Georgia-Pac., 318 F. Supp. at 1120; see also Iovate Health Scis., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered
`
`Supplements & Nutrition, Inc., No. 9:07-CV-46, 2008 WL 11344916, *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29,
`
`2008); Silver State Intellectual Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-01578-GMN,
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 19592
`
`
`
`
`2015 WL 2152658, at *2 (D. Nev. May 7, 2015). The only unfair prejudice that would give rise
`
`to a proper argument under Fed. R. Evid. 403 is the use of pejorative terms. Therefore, except
`
`only as to pejorative terms which HTC Corp. agrees not to use, AGIS’s motion should be denied.
`
`III. AGIS’s MIL NO. 3 TO PRECLUDE USPTO DISPARAGEMENT
`
`HTC Corp. agrees that the parties should not disparage the USPTO or its examiners.
`
`HTC Corp. should be permitted to introduce evidence and argument consistent with the
`
`instructional video that the Court routinely shows to jurors and 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 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 USPTO mistakenly granted the patents-in-suit and the jury should correct that mistake for
`
`one of the above reasons. If such statements were improper, defendants would not be able to
`
`persuasively argue invalidity (and courts would not show the 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).
`
`Furthermore, AGIS’s motions should be applied reciprocally. The Court should similarly
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 19593
`
`
`
`
`preclude any evidence or argument that bolsters the USPTO or its examiners. See, e.g., Mobile
`
`Telecomm. 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 REFERENCING IPRS
`
`HTC Corp. does not oppose AGIS’s motion so long as any exclusion is mutual. HTC
`
`Corp. should be permitted to use inter partes review proceedings for impeachment purposes, or
`
`as evidence of representations made to the USPTO, but agrees not to identify the information as
`
`originating from an IPR proceeding. AGIS should similarly be excluded from referencing the
`
`pending IPR proceedings or their success rates.
`
`V.
`
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE LIFE360 CASE
`
`AGIS’s blanket exclusion of 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”) should be denied.
`
`A.
`
`The Life360 Case is Relevant
`
`Evidence from the Life360 case is relevant to this case because there is an overlap of
`
`facts, witnesses, and testimony. The Life360 case involved comparable patents from the same
`
`patent family as the asserted patents. (Ex. 2, Wolfe Rpt. at ¶¶ 629-636.) U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”)
`
`
`
`priority to the ’728 patent, and
`
` All asserted patents in this case claim
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 5, Oct. 30, 2015 Amendment at p. 13; Ex. 6, Feb. 26, 2016 Amendment at p. 12; Ex. 7, May
`
`31, 2016 Amendment at p. 16.) And at least two of AGIS’s testifying witnesses in this case
`
`previously testified in the Life360 case. (Compare Ex. 8, AGIS’s Feb. 8, 2019 Witness List and
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 19594
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 9, Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc. Case No. 9:14-cv-80651,
`
`Dkt. No. 181 at p. 3.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that if there are
`
`non-infringing alternatives then the hypothetical royalty rate is low). The Life360 case is also
`
`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). AGIS should not be able
`
`
`
` but at the same time avoid negative facts from the Life360 case. It can’t be used
`
`it as a sword and a shield.
`
`Evidence from the Life360 case is also relevant and admissible for other reasons. It is
`
`admissible for impeachment to the extent AGIS takes inconsistent positions regarding its patents,
`
`the LifeRing product, or the Life360 application. Stafford v. Lamorak Ins. Co., No. 18-60160,
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 19595
`
`
`
`
`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.”). It is also relevant to invalidity
`
`because AGIS, Inc.’s witnesses testified about the functionality and availability of AGIS’s
`
`LifeRing product. (Ex. 9 at 114:20-115:6, 117:14-119:13, 141:23-146:22, 147:8-148:4, 159:13-
`
`22, 168:17-172:12.). HTC’s expert has presented the LifeRing product as system that invalidates
`
`claims of the asserted patents. (See, e.g., Ex. 10, Andrews Rpt. at pp. 7 and 9.) Evidence and
`
`testimony regarding from the Life360 case is relevant to this case.
`
`None of the cases AGIS cites support the broad exclusion that AGIS seeks. Instead,
`
`those 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, 2018 WL 5099628 at *3 (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.”); Brumley Estate v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 704 F.2d 1351, 1356-
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 19596
`
`
`
`
`57 (5th Cir. 1983) (finding no reversible error in excluding evidence of two prior jury
`
`determinations that had limited probative value regarding a potential agency relationship
`
`between a non-party and the defendant because they involved a question of agency between the
`
`non-party and other plaintiffs); see also ICU Med., Inc. v. RyMed Techs., Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d
`
`486, 490-91 (D. Del. 2010) (excluding specific references to invalid claims that had little to no
`
`relationship to the claims at issue in the present litigation). The broad exclusion sought by AGIS
`
`is improper and objections 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. (Dkt. No. 157 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 to the jury to mitigate any potential prejudice. Sprint Commc’ns, 2018 WL 6266319,
`
`at *2 (finding that even evidence of a prior verdict is admissible if “it is relevant for some
`
`legitimate purpose”). AGIS’s broad request to exclude all evidence regarding the Life360 case
`
`should be denied.
`
`The cases AGIS cites are distinguishable. In VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 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. No. 6:12-CV-855, 2016 WL 4063802, *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 Corp. v.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 19597
`
`
`
`
`Wells Fargo & Co., 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. No. 2:06-CV-72 DF, 2010 WL 11468934, *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.”). In Coleman Motor Co. v. Chrysler Corp., the court excluded evidence of
`
`prior verdict because it was introduced to show “flagrant disregard” for the law. 525 F.2d 1338,
`
`1350 (3d Cir. 1975). In Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc., 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.” 5 F.3d at 1575.
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC Corp. agrees not to introduce any argument, reference, evidence, suggestion,
`
`testimony (including expert testimony), or elicitation of any testimony
`
`
`
`, fees incurred by either party, the retention or fee agreements of any party’s counsel in
`
`this case, and any fees obtained or potentially obtained by counsel as a result of this case, with
`
`exceptions.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 19598
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. AGIS’s MIL NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE POTENTIAL LITIGATION TARGETS
`
`HTC Corp. agrees not to introduce evidence of parties AGIS has internally considered
`
`suing but did not ultimately sue. HTC Corp. should, however, be permitted to introduce
`
`evidence of (1) parties AGIS has offered to license its patents to (including but not limited to the
`
`patents-in-suit) and (2) parties AGIS has sued for patent infringement.
`
`Evidence of parties that AGIS has sued or offered to license its patents to is relevant to
`
`damages. 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. See Georgia-Pac., 318 F. Supp. at 1121.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AGIS’s success (or failure) in licensing the technology
`
`of the asserted patents is relevant to secondary considerations of obviousness. Graham, 383 U.S.
`
`at 17-18. To the extent AGIS seeks an injunction, AGIS’s willingness to license the asserted
`
`patents is probative of the sufficiency of monetary damages to compensate for any alleged
`
`infringement. Motile Optics, LLC v. SAVV Entm’t Sys., Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01118-RWS-JDL,
`
`
`3 AGIS’s cited cases do not support its position. In Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`627430, *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2015).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
` No. 2:13-CV-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 19599
`
`
`
`
`2017 WL 2901709, *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:15-
`
`cv-01118-RWS-JDL, 2017 WL 2901715 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2017). AGIS’s attempts to license
`
`its patents are relevant.4
`
`AGIS’s motion should also be denied to the extent that they wish to preclude HTC Corp.
`
`from presenting argument or evidence showing that HTC America, Inc., the entity who actually
`
`sells in the United States, is not a party to this case.
`
`
`
`Other litigations is one thing, and HTC Corp. recognizes absent unusual circumstances,
`
`courts in E.D. Tex. will limine that out, requiring counsel to approach before addressing those
`
`subject matters. However, “efforts to monetize patents” may be AGIS’ attempt here to overlap
`
`with the subject matter of MIL #2. HTC incorporates its response to AGIS’ MIL #2 in that the
`
`terms “patent assertion entity” and “non-practicing entity” are not pejorative and should be
`
`allowed. Also, HTC opposes AGIS’ motion to the extent it would unfairly preclude HTC from
`
`presenting argument and evidence concerning AGIS’s business model and licensing efforts. The
`
`licensing efforts of AGIS are relevant to damages (Georgia-Pac., 318 F. Supp. at 1120) and for
`
`other the reasons discussed in MIL #7.
`
`Courts in this district have issued limited orders that preserve the accused infringer’s
`
`ability to elicit testimony that “Plaintiff is a patent assertion entity that does not manufacture or
`
`sell products in this field” or, for example, “prohibit Defendants from characterizing Plaintiff as
`
`an entity that licenses and litigates, so long as those terms are used in conjunction with one
`
`
`4 AGIS fails to explain how the evidence it seeks to exclude is “prejudicial” or would
`“mislead the jury.” AGIS’s conclusory assertions of prejudice should therefore be rejected.
`United States v. D.K.G. Appaloosas, Inc., 630 F. Supp. 1540, 1563 (E.D. Tex. 1986), aff’d, 829
`F.2d 532 (5th Cir. 1987) (rejecting “an argument that its admission was ‘highly prejudicial,’
`‘extremely harmful,’ and ‘prevented a fair trial,’” noting that “[n]o reasons support these
`conclusory statements.”).
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 19600
`
`
`
`
`another.” See Rembrandt Wireless Techs., R2015 WL 627430, at *1; see also Contentguard
`
`Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13- CV-01112-JRG, 2015 WL 12915561, at *2 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Aug. 3, 2015) (“Defendants are NOT precluded from a factual discussion of Plaintiff's
`
`business model.”); St. Lawrence Commnc’ns v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-CV 349-JRG, Dkt. No. 458,
`
`Slip. Op. at 6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2017). For at least reasons herein, HTC requests that the Court
`
`deny Plaintiff’s overly-broad request.
`
`IX. AGIS’s MIL NO. 9 TO PRECLUDE PRIOR ART COMPARISON
`
`AGIS argues a broad exclusion, but HTC Corp. has not relied on any “practicing the prior
`
`art” defense and does not intend to do so at trial. AGIS’s motion also improperly seeks to
`
`preclude HTC Corp. from comparing its products to the prior art for permissible reasons.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` HTC Corp. should also be permitted to identify
`
`inconsistences between AGIS’s infringement theories and AGIS’s validity theories. See
`
`Parthenon, 2016 WL 7743510, at *2 (“Apple may identify apparent contradictions or
`
`inconsistencies between Core’s infringement theories and Core’s validity theories as a means of
`
`cross-examination or impeachment.”). AGIS’s fears of jury confusion can be alleviated via
`
`instructions that clarify that infringement and invalidity must be determined by comparing the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 19601
`
`
`
`
`words of the claims to the accused instrumentalities and the asserted prior art, respectively.
`
`AGIS’s motion should also be denied to the extent AGIS seeks, at the same time, to
`
`accuse products whose release date pre-dates the priority date of the asserted patents of
`
`infringement while arguing that those same products do not invalidate the claims.
`
`X.
`
`AGIS’s MIL NO. 10 TO PRECLUDE ELECTION OF CLAIMS
`
`No opposition as long as reciprocal regarding HTC Corp.’s election of prior art
`
`references to streamline this litigation.
`
`XI. AGIS’s MIL NO. 11 TO PRECLUDE FORUM SHOPPING Commentary
`
`HTC Corp. agrees to refrain from making disparaging statements that AGIS engaged in
`
`“forum shopping” or “litigation abuse.” But to the extent that AGIS opens the door by
`
`attempting to establish its own connections with this district, HTC Corp. should be permitted to
`
`test those connections. See Droplets, Inc. v. Overstock.com, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-401-JRG-RSP,
`
`2014 WL 11515642, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2014) (“[T]his limine shall not prevent
`
`Defendants from probing into a particular witness’s connections to Marshall, Texas if the witness
`
`so represents such connections”); Rembrandt Wireless, 2015 WL 627430, at *4 (“This limine
`
`shall not limit Defendants’ ability to inquire as to Plaintiff’s connections with Texas if Plaintiff
`
`suggests such ties.”) Should AGIS open the door, HTC Corp. should be permitted to probe
`
`AGIS’s factual connections to this district, including when and why AGIS was established, and
`
`whom, if anyone, AGIS employs within this district. Similarly, to the extent that AGIS
`
`introduces evidence regarding the existence of an office in this district, HTC Corp. should be
`
`permitted to explore the motivations for opening the office and business conducted at that office.
`
`HTC Corp. further maintains that it should not be precluded from discussing HTC America, Inc.,
`
`and the fact that HTC America, Inc. is not a party to this case.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 225 Filed 02/21/19 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 19602
`
`
`
`XII. AGIS’s MIL NO. 12 TO PRECLUDE PRIOR ART
`
`HTC Corp. agrees that it will not introduce invalidity arguments based on unelected prior
`
`art,6 but HTC Corp. should be permitted to introduce evidence of unelected prior art to talk about
`
`the state of the art. See Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Glob. Connect, L.L.C., No. 6:12-CV-244-RWS, 2015
`
`WL 11072170, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2015) (precluding expert from “citing references that
`
`were not elected as prior art in his invalidity analysis,” but specifically allowing the expert to talk
`
`about the state of the art) (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 11089593, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2015) (granting similar
`
`motion, but explicitly allowing experts to opine about the state of the art); Freeny v. Murphy Oil
`
`Corp., No. 2:13-CV-791-RSP, 2015 WL 11108703, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2015) (denying
`
`motion “to preclude any evidence or argument regarding any prior art references not listed in
`
`[defendant’s] Final Election of Asserted Prior Art” in its entirety).
`
`XIII. AGIS’s MIL NO.