Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 9306
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`v.
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
` LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`C.A. NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC’S
`OPPOSED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 9307
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`A. MOTIONS IN LIMINE .......................................................................................... 1
`
`1. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiring about or eliciting any testimony regarding
`settlement discussions from any case. .................................................................... 1
`2. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding any
`claims of privilege asserted by any party during discovery, privileged subject
`matter, or any communications between the parties and their attorneys, or any
`attempt to elicit any testimony that the party knows will, or is intended to, cause
`the responding party to invoke its right to attorney-client confidentiality,
`including advice of counsel relating to alleged infringement of the asserted
`patents. .................................................................................................................... 2
`3. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding
`withdrawn infringement allegations, claims never asserted or no longer
`asserted, or no longer accused products. ................................................................. 2
`4. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony comparing the
`accused products to the preferred embodiments of the asserted patents. ............... 3
`5. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding
`noninfringement based on alleged practice of the prior art. ................................... 3
`6. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding
`whether any asserted claims of the asserted patents are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 as an invalidity defense. .................................................................... 4
`7. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding any
`pending and/or requested USPTO post-grant proceeding regarding the asserted
`patents, including IPRs or reexaminations or the success rate of such
`proceedings. ............................................................................................................ 4
`8. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument (or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony) about any matters that
`were not timely and properly disclosed pursuant to the Local Rules, the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Docket Control Order, or other Court
`Orders. ..................................................................................................................... 5
`9. No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including
`expert testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any
`testimony regarding equitable defenses or related issues. ...................................... 5
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 9308
`
`
`
`10. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding the
`prosecution history of the asserted patents. ............................................................ 6
`11. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony) or
`argument regarding other courts’ opinions (or references thereto) that limited
`or excluded an expert’s testimony or opinion. ........................................................ 6
`12. Any arguments or testimony that GTP’s infringement analysis is
`incomplete, inaccurate, or in any way deficient because GTP did not review or
`analyze 13 of the identified applications and/or features on which Samsung has
`refused discovery. ................................................................................................... 7
`13. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony) or
`argument indicating or suggesting that the case lacks merit or has less value
`because the patents-in-suit are expired. .................................................................. 7
`14. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony) or
`argument that any alleged delay in filing the lawsuit indicates any lack or
`diminution of value of the claims. .......................................................................... 8
`15. Any reference to or argument regarding Defendants’ patents or patent
`applications as related to, being practiced by, or implemented in, the accused
`products or as a defense to infringement. ............................................................... 8
`16. Any argument or testimony regarding alleged improperly named or
`omitted inventors. ................................................................................................. 10
`17. Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or
`argument regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony concerning, the
`workload of the USPTO or of its examiners or otherwise disparaging the
`USPTO or its employees in any way. ................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 9309
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 11
`Advanced Tech. Incubator, Inc. v. Sharp Corp.,
`No. 5:09-CV-135, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145630 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2010)
`(Folsom, J.) .................................................................................................................................. 3
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 5
`Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 10
`Blanchard v. Putnam,
`75 U.S. 420 (1869) .................................................................................................................... 11
`Brown & Brown of Miss., LLC v. Baker,
`No. 1:16CV327-LG-RHW, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225637 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 6, 2017) ............ 6
`Cameco Indus., Inc. v. Louisiana Cane Mfg., Inc.,
` No. CIV. A. 92-3158, 1995 WL 468234 (E.D. La. July 27, 1995) .......................................... 11
`Catalina Lighting v. Lamps Plus,
`295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 3
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126811 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2016) (Payne, J.) ....................................... 5
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121075
`(E.D. Tex. Sep. 8, 2016) (Gilstrap, J.) ......................................................................................... 6
`Cybergym Research, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`No. 2:05-CV-527 (DF), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102199 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2007)
`(Folsom, J.) .................................................................................................................................. 8
`Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`No. 2:06-CV-72 DF, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15205583 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2010) ................ 14
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp, LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 10
`HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC,
`949 F.3d 685 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................... 12
`Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Sys.,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218468 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2019) (Gilstrap, C.J.) ............................... 5
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`C.A. No. 10-1067-LPS, 2015 WL 82052 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2015) .............................................. 12
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 9310
`
`
`
`L.C. Eldridge Sales Co. v. Azen Mfg. Pte.,
`No. 6:11cv599, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186151 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2013)
`(Schneider, J.) ............................................................................................................................ 13
`Mediatek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-5341 YGR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31461 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) ....................... 7
`Metaswitch Networks, Ltd. v. Genband US LLC,
`No. 2:14-cv-744-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25420 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2016)
`(Payne, J.) .................................................................................................................................... 4
`Mobile Telcomms. Techs. v. ZTE United States, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184653 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2016)
`(Gilstrap, J.) ................................................................................................................................. 1
`Mobile Telcoms. Techs., LLC v. Clearwire Corp.,
`No. 2:12-CV-308-JRG-RSP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11355 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2014)
`(Payne, J.) .................................................................................................................................... 8
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:13-CV-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20306 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2015)
`(Payne, J.) .................................................................................................................................... 4
`Retractable Techs. Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`No. 2:07-CV-250, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131236 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2009) (Folsom, J) ....... 12
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`No. 2:07-CV-451 (TJW), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157505 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2011)
`(Ward, J.) ..................................................................................................................................... 3
`Salazar v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:16-cv-01096-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 236 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2018) ........................................... 7
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179336 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2015)
`(Mitchell, J.) ................................................................................................................................ 2
`SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys.,
`No. 2:08-cv-158-JRG, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198173 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2012) ................. 14
`Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc.,
`119 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................. 13
`ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:14-cv-203-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191430 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015)
`(Payne, J.) .................................................................................................................................... 8
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. §256 .............................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 9311
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) hereby moves the Court for an order
`
`in limine to instruct counsel for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) not to mention, comment on, allude to,
`
`refer to, or elicit testimony (including from experts) in the presence of the jury—on each of the
`
`following categories of evidence discussed below without first approaching the Bench and seeking
`
`permission from the Court.
`
`A. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`1.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or inquiring about or eliciting any testimony regarding settlement
`discussions from any case.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any reference, evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument regarding settlement discussions of any type, including in this case. The testimony and
`
`evidence that Defendants seek to introduce is not relevant to any issue in the case. Any such
`
`argument or testimony would confuse the jury, and would be more prejudicial than probative. Fed
`
`R. Evid. 403. The Court has granted similar motions. See Mobile Telcomms. Techs. v. ZTE United
`
`States, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-946-JRG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184653, at *3-4 (E.D. Tex. July 21,
`
`2016) (Gilstrap, J.) (granting motion in limine to exclude “any argument, evidence, testimony, or
`
`reference to settlement discussions in this case”); Ex. A, Estech Sys. v. Target Corp., No. 2:20-cv-
`
`00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2021) (Payne, J.).
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 9312
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding any claims of
`privilege asserted by any party during discovery, privileged subject matter, or
`any communications between the parties and their attorneys, or any attempt
`to elicit any testimony that the party knows will, or is intended to, cause the
`responding party to invoke its right to attorney-client confidentiality,
`including advice of counsel relating to alleged infringement of the asserted
`patents.
`
`The parties should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony about any
`
`claims of privilege asserted by any party during discovery, privileged subject matter, or any
`
`communications between the parties and their attorneys, or any attempt to elicit any testimony that
`
`the party knows will, or is intended to, cause the responding party to invoke its right to attorney-
`
`client confidentiality. By purposely seeking testimony regarding privileged subject matter (and
`
`the witness asserting privilege), Defendants would confuse the jury. Moreover, privileged subject
`
`matter is not relevant to any issue in the case. The Court has granted similar motions. See, e.g.,
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179336, at
`
`*10 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2015) (Mitchell, J.); Ex. A, Estech Sys., No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP,
`
`Dkt. No. 304, at *9.
`
`3.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding withdrawn
`infringement allegations, claims never asserted or no longer asserted, or no
`longer accused products.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony about
`
`withdrawn infringement allegations, patent claims never asserted or no longer asserted, or products
`
`that are no longer accused of infringement. Such argument or testimony is not relevant to any
`
`issue submitted to the jury, and it presents a substantial danger of confusing the issues and
`
`misleading the jury. The Court has granted similar motions. See, e.g., Ex. A, Estech Sys., No.
`
`2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *8; Advanced Tech. Incubator, Inc. v. Sharp Corp., No.
`
`5:09-CV-135, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145630, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2010) (Folsom, J.) (“On
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 9313
`
`
`
`balance, the Court agrees with ATI that permitting ‘sideshow’ litigation about dropped claims and
`
`instrumentalities would cause undue prejudice, jury confusion, and waste of time.”).
`
`4.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony comparing the accused
`products to the preferred embodiments of the asserted patents.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony that
`
`compares
`
`the accused products
`
`to
`
`the preferred embodiments of
`
`the patents-in-suit.
`
`“[I]nfringement is to be determined by comparing the asserted claim to the accused device, not by
`
`comparing the accused device to the figures of the asserted patent.” Catalina Lighting v. Lamps
`
`Plus, 295 F.3d 1277, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Argument or testimony about any other comparison
`
`would be confusing and highly prejudicial. The Court has granted similar motions. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`A, Estech Sys., No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *9; Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`
`No. 2:07-CV-451 (TJW), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157505, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2011) (Ward,
`
`J.).
`
`5.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or
`inquiry about or eliciting any
`testimony regarding
`noninfringement based on alleged practice of the prior art.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony that they do
`
`not infringe because they practice the prior art. Arguments or testimony on this issue have no
`
`probative value to the claims and defenses in these actions and would serve only to confuse and
`
`prejudice the jury. The Court has granted similar motions. See, e.g., Rembrandt Wireless Techs.,
`
`LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:13-CV-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20306, at *15
`
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2015) (Payne, J.) (“It would be improper for Samsung to argue that the accused
`
`products do not infringe merely because they practice the prior art.”); Metaswitch Networks, Ltd.
`
`v. Genband US LLC, No. 2:14-cv-744-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25420, at *12 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 1, 2016) (Payne, J.); Ex. A, Estech Sys., No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *5.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9314
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding whether any
`asserted claims of the asserted patents are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`as an invalidity defense.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument, testimony, or evidence
`
`that the asserted patents are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Subject matter eligibility under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`The Court has granted similar motions. Implicit, LLC v. NetScout Sys., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`218468, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2019) (Gilstrap, C.J.) (granting motion in limine “ Defendants
`
`will not offer, solicit, or refer to testimony, evidence, or argument regarding any alleged invalidity
`
`of any patent-in-suit for being directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”).
`
`7.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding any pending
`and/or requested USPTO post-grant proceeding regarding the asserted
`patents, including IPRs or reexaminations or the success rate of such
`proceedings.
`
`GTP moves to preclude any reference to any ongoing post-grant proceedings involving the
`
`Asserted Patents. During the pendency of this case, Defendants filed four currently pending ex
`
`parte reexamination petitions against the Asserted Patents, and non-parties Unified Patents, LLC
`
`and Apple, Inc. have filed five currently pending IPRs against the Asserted Patents. Non-parties
`
`LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics Inc. U.S.A., and Google LLC have filed motion for joinders
`
`to those IPRs. Those proceedings, including any reference to their institution, are not relevant to
`
`the issues to be decided by the jury in this case, and any limited probative value would be
`
`outweighed substantially by the danger of jury confusion and unfair prejudice to GTP. See FED.
`
`R. EVID. 401-403. Courts including this one have routinely kept such information about parallel
`
`post-grant proceedings from the jury. See, e.g., Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs.,
`
`Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126811, at *9 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2016) (Payne, J.) (“The parties may
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 9315
`
`
`
`not refer to the existence, pendency, or outcome of post-grant proceedings at the USPTO”), report
`
`and recommendation adopted, Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., C.A. No. 2:14-
`
`cv-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121075, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 8, 2016) (Gilstrap, J.);
`
`Ex. B, MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-308-ADA, ECF No. 332, at 4 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Sept. 29, 2020) (Albright, J.) (granting motion in limine as to IPRs); see also Ex. A, Estech Sys.,
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *2.
`
`8.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`(or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony) about any matters that were not
`timely and properly disclosed pursuant to the Local Rules, the Federal Rules
`of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Docket Control Order, or other Court Orders.
`
`This case is now less than two months from trial. At this late date, any matters that have
`
`not been timely and properly disclosed under the applicable rules, the Docket Control Order, and
`
`other orders of the Court, would cause undue prejudice to GTP if Defendants were allowed to
`
`introduce them at trial to the jury, for any reason other than impeachment. See, e.g., Brown &
`
`Brown of Miss., LLC v. Baker, No. 1:16CV327-LG-RHW, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225637, at *5
`
`(S.D. Miss. Dec. 6, 2017) (“The parties will be prohibited from presenting evidence, fact witnesses,
`
`and/or expert testimony that were not timely disclosed during discovery.”); Ex. A, Estech Sys., No.
`
`2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *82
`
`9.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony
`regarding equitable defenses or related issues.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony about
`
`equitable issues. Defendants have stipulated that they will not plead or otherwise assert that GTP’s
`
`claims are “barred by the doctrines of prosecution history estoppel, judicial estoppel, laches, patent
`
`exhaustion, implied license, or ensnarement.” Dkt. No 134 at ¶ 2. There is no right to a jury trial
`
`on any equitable claims or defenses. The Court has granted similar motions. See Salazar v. HTC
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 9316
`
`
`
`Corp., No. 2:16-cv-01096-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 236, *6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2018); Ex. A, Estech Sys.,
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *5.
`
`10.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony), or argument
`regarding, or inquiry about or eliciting any testimony regarding the
`prosecution history of the asserted patents.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony about the
`
`prosecution history of the asserted patents. The Court has already construed the claims, and it is
`
`improper for experts to opine on claim construction using the prosecution history. See, e.g.,
`
`Mediatek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 11-cv-5341 YGR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`31461, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) (excluding expert testimony that “relies heavily on the
`
`prosecution history, specifications, and even provisional applications to explain and expound upon
`
`a specific meaning and/or requirements of the terms identified.”). The prosecution history is not
`
`relevant to any of the issues in the case. Accordingly, any such arguments or testimony would
`
`confuse the jury and be highly prejudicial. The Court has granted similar motions. See, e.g.,
`
`ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:14-cv-203-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`191430, at *8-9 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015)(Payne, J.); Cybergym Research, LLC v. Icon Health &
`
`Fitness, Inc., No. 2:05-CV-527 (DF), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102199, at *7-8 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7,
`
`2007) (Folsom, J.); Ex. A, Estech Sys., No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *89
`
`11.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony) or argument
`regarding other courts’ opinions (or references thereto) that limited or
`excluded an expert’s testimony or opinion.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony about court
`
`opinions limiting or excluding an expert’s testimony or opinions. Any such argument or testimony
`
`would be irrelevant, confuse the jury, and create unfair prejudice. The Court has granted similar
`
`motions. See, e.g., Mobile Telcoms. Techs., LLC v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:12-CV-308-JRG-RSP,
`
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11355, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2014) (Payne, J.) (“The Court finds that
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 9317
`
`
`
`allowing evidence that an expert has been excluded in other cases carries a significant risk of juror
`
`confusion and unfair prejudice.”).
`
`12.
`
`Any arguments or testimony that GTP’s infringement analysis is incomplete,
`inaccurate, or in any way deficient because GTP did not review or analyze 13
`of the identified applications and/or features on which Samsung has refused
`discovery.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from using their discovery conduct as both a sword and
`
`shield. GTP served interrogatories and sought production of documents related to 20 different
`
`software applications and/or features that implement hardware components to infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents. Defendants only provided discovery on seven of the 20 identified applications
`
`and/or features and they refused to provide discovery on the remaining 13 applications and/or
`
`features. Discovery related to those 13 applications and/or features are the subject of pending
`
`discovery motions and are critical to GTP’s infringement and damages claims.1
`
`Defendants thus shielded themselves from disclosing relevant discovery by refusing to
`
`provide the relevant information to GTP. They should not be permitted at the trial to use their
`
`obstructive discovery conduct as a sword to attack GTP’s infringement analysis. Nor should
`
`Defendants be permitted to argue that evidence they previously characterized as irrelevant to
`
`infringement, would now be relevant.
`
`13.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony) or argument
`indicating or suggesting that the case lacks merit or has less value because the
`patents-in-suit are expired.
`
`Defendants apparently intend to introduce evidence, testimony, or argument that this case
`
`lacks merit because the patents-in-suit are expired. The testimony or evidence that Defendants
`
`
`1 The 13 applications are the subject of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 84) and Plaintiff Gesture Technology
`Partners, LLC’s Motion and Brief in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery from Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Dkt. No. 99).
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 9318
`
`
`
`seek to introduce is not relevant to any issue in the case. Any such argument or testimony would
`
`confuse the jury, and would be more prejudicial than probative. Fed R. Evid. 403.
`
`14.
`
`Any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert testimony) or argument
`that any alleged delay in filing the lawsuit indicates any lack or diminution of
`value of the claims.
`
`Defendants should be precluded from introducing any argument or testimony about any
`
`alleged delay by GTP in filing suit against Defendants as relevant to the value of the claims. Such
`
`evidence “is not relevant to damages, even when considering the Georgia-Pacific factors” because
`
`“‘[t]he argument that the delay in bringing suit somehow establishes [patent owner’s] perception
`
`of the value of its invention is specious.’” See Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods.
`
`Grp, LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Court has granted similar motions. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. A, Estech Sys., No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 304, at *5.
`
`15.
`
`Any reference to or argument regarding Defendants’ patents or patent
`applications as related to, being practiced by, or implemented in, the accused
`products or as a defense to infringement.
`
`Under Federal Rules of Evidence 401-403, 602, and 701-702, GTP moves to exclude any
`
`reference to Defendants’ patents or patent applications as related to, being practiced by the accused
`
`products or implemented in, the accused products, or as a defense to infringement. Argument by
`
`Defendants that their patents or patent applications are related to, practiced by, or implemented in,
`
`the accused products is not relevant to any of the issues before the jury. A defendant’s patents
`
`cannot be a basis for non-infringement. See, e.g., Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80
`
`F.3d 1553, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The existence of one’s own patent does not constitute a defense
`
`to infringement of someone else’s patent.”); Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic,
`
`Inc., 265 F.3d 1294, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The fact that [accused infringer's] patent might read
`
`on the [accused device] is totally irrelevant to the question of whether [the accused infringer]
`
`willfully infringed another patent.”). Moreover, to the extent Defendants might argue that their
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 195 Filed 01/10/22 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 9319
`
`
`
`own patents could be relevant to damages, they have not offered any expert opinions regarding
`
`those patents or any purported relevance.
`
`Moreover, introduction of such arguments or evidence about Defendants’ patents would
`
`only unfairly prejudice GTP and confuse or mislead the jury regarding the patents at issue in the
`
`case, as well as suggest that Defendants cannot infringe because they have their own patents. The
`
`Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and trial courts have all recognized that introduction of an
`
`infringer’s own patents poses an exceptionally high risk of confusion and prejudice. See
`
`Blanchard v. Putnam, 75 U.S. 420, 425 (1869) (reversing judgment for accused infringer and
`
`remanding for new trial, as such evidence would “was well calculated to mislead the jury by
`
`withdrawing their attention from the real subject-matter in controversy”); Glaros v. H.H.
`
`Robertson Co., 797 F.2d 1564, 1572–73 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (affirming exclusion of accused
`
`infringer’s patents because they “would have injected frolics and detours and would have required
`
`introduction of counter-evidence, all likely to create side issues that would have unduly distracted
`
`the jury from the main issues.”); Cameco Indus., Inc. v. Louisiana Cane Mfg., Inc., No. CIV. A.
`
`92-3158, 1995 WL 468234, at *6 (E.D. La. July 27, 1995) (granting motion in limine).
`
`To avoid that risk, this Court and others have granted motions in limine excluding such
`
`evidence when there is no speci