Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 196 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 9355
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION OF AGREED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Sixth Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 155), Plaintiff Gesture
`
`Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) (collectively the “Parties”) file this Joint Stipulation of
`
`Agreed Motions in limine. The Parties agree not to mention, allude to, refer to, or elicit testimony
`
`upon, in any manner, in the presence of the jury – whether during voir dire, opening statement, the
`
`presentation of evidence, closing argument, or any other phase of this trial – each of the following
`
`categories without first approaching the Bench and seeking permission from the Court.
`
`1.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, any party’s
`
`use or alleged use of jury studies, jury consultants, focus group studies, or shadow juries.
`
`1
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT STIPULATION OF AGREED MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Sixth Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 155), Plaintiff Gesture
`
`Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) (collectively the “Parties”) file this Joint Stipulation of
`
`Agreed Motions in limine. The Parties agree not to mention, allude to, refer to, or elicit testimony
`
`upon, in any manner, in the presence of the jury – whether during voir dire, opening statement, the
`
`presentation of evidence, closing argument, or any other phase of this trial – each of the following
`
`categories without first approaching the Bench and seeking permission from the Court.
`
`1.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, any party’s
`
`use or alleged use of jury studies, jury consultants, focus group studies, or shadow juries.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 196 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 9356
`
`2.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, the actual
`
`or estimated costs incurred in prosecution or defense of this lawsuit.
`
`3.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, motions
`
`that have been filed in the case and/or the Court’s rulings on any motions (except for the claim
`
`constructions adopted by the Court).
`
`4.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony suggesting, that the
`
`presumption of validity does not apply to the asserted patents.
`
`5.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, whether
`
`any asserted claims of the asserted patents are unpatentable for lack of enablement as an invalidity
`
`defense.
`
`6.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, the parties’
`
`filing of any motions in limine.
`
`7.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, statements
`
`or reasoning in the Court’s claim construction order.
`
`8.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, whether
`
`any asserted claims of the asserted patents is indefinite as an invalidity defense.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 196 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 9357
`
`9.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, alleged
`
`misrepresentations to or withholding from the USPTO, or the intent of the named inventor or their
`
`patent counsel in their dealings with the USPTO.
`
`10.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, GTP’s
`
`choice of venue.
`
`11.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony) or argument using the derogatory term “patent troll” (or similarly derogatory terms)
`
`when referencing GTP.
`
`12. No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, disputed
`
`discovery or other pretrial issues or alleged deficiencies with respect to discovery or pretrial
`
`obligations.
`
`13. No party will introduce, inquire about, or elicit any expert testimony from any
`
`witness other than witnesses that provided a written report under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).
`
`14. No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, the
`
`financial interests of non-witnesses in the outcome of the litigation or how GTP is paying for this
`
`litigation.
`
`15.
`
`No party will introduce any reference, evidence, testimony (including expert
`
`testimony), or argument regarding, or inquire about or elicit any testimony concerning, claim
`
`construction by any lay witness.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 196 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 9358
`
`Dated: January 10, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`Michael Simons
`Texas State Bar No. 24008042
`Robert Daniel Garza
`Texas State Bar No. 24097730
`Robert Rhodes
`Texas State Bar No. 24116958
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`327 Congress Ave., Suite 490
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`dgarza@wsltrial.com
`rrhodes@wsltria.com
`
`Todd E. Landis
`State Bar No. 24030226
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Tel: 512-543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`John Wittenzellner
`Pennsylvania State Bar No. 308996
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: 512-543-1373
`johnw@wsltrial.com
`
`Kevin S. Kudlac
`Texas Bar No. 00790089
`Kudlac PLLC
`1916 Wimberly Lane
`Austin, TX 78735
`Tel: 512-656-5743
`kevin@kudlacIP.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 196 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 9359
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly (TX Bar No. 00795077)
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`Radhesh Devendran (pro hac vice)
`radheshdevendran@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Facsimile: 202-551-1705
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Robert Laurenzi robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX Bar No. 24001351)
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 196 Filed 01/10/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 9360
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 10, 2022 the undersigned caused a copy
`
`of the foregoing document to be served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system,
`
`pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
