Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`REFERENCES TO AMAZON’S OVERALL ADVERTISING REVENUE .....................1
`
`REFERENCE TO PARTIES DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION OR
`OTHER ENTITIES CONTROLLED BY ALMONDNET .................................................3
`
`REFERENCES TO THE ASSERTION OF
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE ...................................................................................6
`
`IV.
`
`REFERENCES TO ENHANCED DAMAGES OR EXCEPTIONAL CASE ....................8
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 3 of 18
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`A-B Dick Co. v. Marr,
`95 F. Supp. 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1950).................................................................................................8
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-248, 2011 WL 4899922 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2011) ................................................8
`
`Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. A-B Distributors, Inc.,
`No. 95-241-CIV-J-20, 1996 WL 34719787 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 1996) ......................................7
`
`BMC Software, Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-903-JRG, 2016 WL 379620 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2016) ........................................3
`
`City of El Paso v. El Paso Entm’t, Inc.,
`464 F. App'x 366 (5th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................4
`
`CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00513-ADA, Dkt. 204 (Nov. 8, 2021) .................................................................9
`
`Datapoint Corp. v. Picturetel Corp.,
`Case Nos. 98-1341, 98-1367, 98-1368, 1999 WL 507141 (Fed. Cir. July 15, 1999) ................7
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Riviera Maynex Enterprises, Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................9
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`Grenada Steel Indus., Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Co.,
`695 F.2d 883 (5th Cir. 1983) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .................................................................................................................8, 9
`
`HTC Corp. v. Tech. Properties Ltd.,
`No. 5:08-CV-00882-PSG, 2013 WL 4782598 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013) .................................3
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00052-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 440 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) .........................................2
`
`IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp.,
`No. 2:04-CV-1676-RCJ-RJJ, 2008 WL 11451148 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008) .............................7
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, Inc.,
`No. 6:16-CV-00080-JRG, Dkt. 253 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017) ...................................................2
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274 (2023)..................................................................................................................8
`
`Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................7
`
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
`No. 17-14-JFB-SRF, 2019 BL 244914 (D. Del. July 2, 2019) ..................................................4
`
`Mims v. Davis,
`No. A-19-CV-788-LY, 2020 WL 4738372 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2020) ...................................7
`
`MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-03657-SI, 2019 BL 215196 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2019) ............................................4
`
`MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:10-cv-112-JRG, 2013 WL 12158524 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2013) ....................................3
`
`N. States Power Co. v. City of Ashland, Wis.,
`No. 12-CV-602-BBC, 2015 WL 1745880 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 16, 2015) .....................................7
`
`Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 545 ..............................................................................................................................9
`
`Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc.,
`970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992)....................................................................................................9
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:13-CV-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 627430 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2015) ...............................2
`
`Reyes v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.,
`No. CV 15-3452-DMG ..............................................................................................................4
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. AWS Convergence Techs., Inc.,
`No. 2:09-CV-289, Dkt. 505 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2012) ...............................................................2
`
`Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc.,
`244 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................2
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Unisource Discovery, Inc. v. Unisource Discovery, LLC,
`No. 20-23276-CIV-GO, 2022 BL 503216 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2022) .........................................4
`
`United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co.,
`241 F. Supp. 3d 37 (D.D.C.), judgment aff’d, 709 Fed. Appx. 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .................7
`
`Upjohn Co. v. United States,
`449 U.S. 383 (1981) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Vasquez v. Hall,
`No. 1:19-CV-405-SH, 2020 WL 9597732 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2020) .....................................7
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ............................................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3) ..........................................................................................8
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 401 ......................................................................................................1, 4
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 402 ......................................................................................................1, 4
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 6 of 18
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 6 of 18
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibits to the Declaration of Christopher L. Larson in Support of Defendants’ Motions Jn
`
`Limine are cited herein as noted in the table below:
`
`Deposition transcript of Roy Shkedi, dated April 20, 2023 (“Shkedi Dep.”’)
`
`Plaintiff's Fourth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First
`Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1 and 9) (“Plaintiff's Fourth Suppl. ROG Resp.”)
`
`(Nov. 8, 2021)
`
`Foop|Rebuttal Expert Report ofJason Frankovitz (“Frankovitz Rebuttal Rep.”)
`
`Deposition transcript of Daniel Jaye, dated May 12, 2023 (“Jaye Dep.”)
`
`CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-CV-00513-ADA, Dkt. 204
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LCC, and Amazon Web Services,
`
`Inc. (“Amazon”) respectfully bring these motions in limine for an order precluding AlmondNet,
`
`Inc. (“AlmondNet”), its counsel, and witnesses from mentioning, referring to, or offering any
`
`evidence or argument relating to any of the following matters within the hearing of any member
`
`of the jury during voir dire or at any time during trial.
`
`I.
`
`REFERENCES TO AMAZON’S OVERALL ADVERTISING REVENUE
`
`AlmondNet accuses certain features of Amazon’s advertising services that assist
`
`advertisers who want to display targeted advertisements on third-party Internet sites. Besides
`
`assisting in the display of advertisements on third-party Internet sites, Amazon’s advertising
`
`services also include numerous other non-accused services for displaying advertisements on
`
`Amazon’s owned-and-operated retail websites and apps, such as on Amazon.com, Amazon’s
`
`shopping app, on Amazon’s streaming properties such as Prime Video and twitch.tv, and on other
`
`Amazon-sold devices such as FireTV and Kindle. Amazon derives
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`Nevertheless, AlmondNet intends to tell the jury about Amazon’s total advertising revenue,
`
`profits, and other related indicators of financial success in Amazon’s advertising business, such as
`
`its overall relative place in the digital advertising market. Any such argument and evidence should
`
`be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. AlmondNet’s damages expert, Mr. Jim
`
`Bergman, does not use this information for a calculation of damages in this case. Amazon’s total
`
`advertising revenue or profits undisputedly do not reflect the value of the claimed inventions or
`
`the accused technology, and thus are irrelevant and subject to exclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402;
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (damages “must reflect
`
`the value attributable to the infringing features of the [accused] product, and no more”); see also
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`id. (“care must be taken to avoid misleading the jury by placing undue emphasis on the value of
`
`the entire product”). Indeed, Amazon’s total advertising revenue and profits also include
`
`international sales that have nothing to do with AlmondNet’s claims, which are limited to alleged
`
`infringement in the United States.
`
`Given that Amazon’s total advertising revenue and profits are not relevant here, any
`
`argument or evidence related thereto should be excluded because the risk of unfair prejudice to
`
`Amazon far outweighs is non-existent relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Not only are Amazon’s total
`
`advertising revenue profits and its relative place in the market irrelevant, but if presented they
`
`would “skew the damages horizon for the jury, regardless of the contribution of the patented
`
`component” to Amazon’s overall advertising business, and no instruction could undo this
`
`prejudice. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Amazon
`
`will be unfairly prejudiced because such information may cause the jury to calibrate any damage
`
`award against the size, profits, and financial position of Amazon’s entire advertising business,
`
`rather than tailoring the award to the specific contribution of the claimed inventions. For this
`
`reason, courts routinely preclude plaintiffs from discussing high-level financial information
`
`divorced from the accused technology. See, e.g., SimpleAir, Inc. v. AWS Convergence Techs., Inc.,
`
`No. 2:09-CV-289, Dkt. 505, at 1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2012) (prohibiting plaintiff “from discussing
`
`the total revenue or profits of Defendants’ products”); Implicit, LLC v. Trend Micro, Inc., No.
`
`6:16-CV-00080-JRG, Dkt. 253, at 6 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017) (precluding reference to defendant’s
`
`“size, profits, or total value”); Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00052-JRG-
`
`RSP, Dkt. 440, at 11 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) (precluding evidence of “past annual revenue,
`
`estimated future annual revenue, or overall capital expenditures”); Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP
`
`v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:13-CV-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 627430, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31,
`
`2015) (granting motion to “exclude evidence of Samsung’s size, wealth, total revenues or profits”);
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:10-cv-112-JRG, 2013 WL 12158524, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Apr. 24, 2013) (excluding reference to defendant’s “total revenue or operating profits”); HTC
`
`Corp. v. Tech. Props. Ltd., No. 5:08-CV-00882-PSG, 2013 WL 4782598, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
`
`6, 2013) (“recent Federal Circuit case law does not permit the use of a company’s overall size or
`
`revenue as a check to confirm the reasonableness of a jury award”). AlmondNet should be
`
`precluded from presenting Amazon’s total sales, revenues, profits, and the relative size of
`
`Amazon’s advertising business whether being compared to revenue from the accused
`
`advertisements displayed on third party websites or to the digital advertising industry as a whole,
`
`and it must “structure its damages presentation in such a way that the jury will not be able to
`
`calculate” Amazon’s total advertising revenue or profits. BMC Software, Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:14-CV-903-JRG, 2016 WL 379620, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2016).
`
`II.
`
`REFERENCE TO PARTIES DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION OR OTHER
`ENTITIES CONTROLLED BY ALMONDNET
`
`The Court should preclude any argument, evidence, testimony, or other reference to parties
`
`the Court dismissed from this case, or other entities controlled by AlmondNet, including Intent IQ,
`
`LLC and Datonics LLC.
`
`AlmondNet is the only plaintiff in this action as the sole assignee of the asserted patents.
`
`Neither Intent IQ nor Datonics, which came into existence in or around 2011, had
`
`
`
`16
`
` (See Shkedi Dep. Tr. at 90:15-22, 186:3-
`
` The Court also
`
`removed Intent IQ from this case because Intent IQ dropped its only asserted patent. (See Dkt.
`
`121, 122.)
`
`AlmondNet, Intent IQ, and Datonics
`
`Fourth Suppl. ROG Resp. at 6, 8
`
`3
`
`. (See Plaintiff’s
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; id. at 140-42
`
`(same).) Notwithstanding their
`
`, both Intent IQ and Datonics
`
`nevertheless
`
`.
`
`Evidence of non-party conduct is irrelevant or may detract from the core issues in the case
`
`by misleading or confusing the jury, wasting time, or prejudicing Amazon. See F.R.E. 401-403.1
`
`AlmondNet cannot proffer at trial any argument, evidence, or testimony about its related
`
`non-party entities because such evidence is irrelevant to the asserted patents, Amazon’s products,
`
`and any damages available to AlmondNet. Such arguments, evidence, and testimony, including
`
`evidence regarding the non-parties’ creation, their products, customers, development, operations,
`
`or financials, also have no to limited probative value to any issues the jury will decide. That is
`
`because AlmondNet’s business and its patents, and Amazon’s products and operations, are the
`
`issues set for trial. Nothing else.
`
`
`1 See City of El Paso v. El Paso Entm’t, Inc., 464 F. App’x 366, 379 (5th Cir. 2012) (affirming
`exclusion of testimony by non-party to an agreement because the non-party lacked personal
`knowledge regarding its formation and only knew of the agreement after its formation); Grenada
`Steel Indus., Inc. v. Alabama Oxygen Co., 695 F.2d 883, 889 (5th Cir. 1983) (affirming exclusion
`of a nonparty manufacturer’s design changes because the evidence “lacked sufficient probative
`value and injected the dangers of confusion and misleading the jury.”); Tennison v. Circus Circus
`Enterprises, Inc., 244 F.3d 684 , 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming exclusion of non-party testimony
`because of limited probative value to asserted claims); MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron
`Tech., Inc., No. 14-cv-03657-SI, 2019 BL 215196 at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2019) (excluding
`evidence about defendant’s non-party subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint venture); Reyes v.
`Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. CV 15-3452-DMG (FFMx), 2016 BL 491167, at *4 (C.D. Cal.
`June 28, 2016) (excluding statements by a non-party because they may confuse the issues and
`unfairly prejudice defendant); Unisource Discovery, Inc. v. Unisource Discovery, LLC, No. 20-
`23276-CIV-GO, 2022 BL 503216, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2022); Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA,
`Inc., No. 17-14-JFB-SRF, 2019 BL 244914, at *3 (D. Del. July 2, 2019).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, AlmondNet intends to proffer arguments and evidence about its non-party
`
`entities to suggest that AlmondNet is an operating business with successful products
`
`
`
`. That unfairly prejudices Amazon and would
`
`only serve to mislead and confuse the jury. For example, any such evidence will incorrectly affect
`
`the jury’s understanding of the hypothetical negotiation as between operating companies
`
`conducting a bona-fide business, rather than
`
` and Amazon, or give the false
`
`impression that Amazon harmed AlmondNet’s thriving business and that such hypothetical
`
`negotiation should compensate AlmondNet for that alleged harm. Neither is the case. And both
`
`may incite an emotional response causing the jury to feel they have to penalize Amazon in some
`
`way.
`
`Further, AlmondNet’s damages expert Mr. Bergman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. (See Amazon’s Mot. to
`
`Exclude the Unreliable Testimony of AlmondNet’s Damages Expert Jim W. Bergman (Dkt. 126
`
`at 8-9).) To the extent AlmondNet refers to Intent IQ and Datonics agreements as relevant to a
`
`reasonably royalty, they are not. (See id.) Also, references to other businesses controlled by
`
`AlmondNet or patents previously asserted but no longer in this case have no probative value to the
`
`issues to be tried, and referring to them at trial to suggest AlmondNet’s other businesses are
`
`somehow harmed unfairly prejudices Amazon.2
`
`
`
`
`2 To the extent Amazon’s motion to exclude is denied (Dkt. 126), these motions in limine do
`not seek to preclude the parties’ damages experts from relying on the agreements involving Intent
`IQ and/or Datonics LLC for their opinions at trial.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, any argument or evidence regarding Intent IQ’s or Datonics’s creation, products,
`
`customers, development, operations, or financials are not only irrelevant, but creates the risks of
`
`unfair prejudice to Amazon, confusing or misleading the jury, and wasting trial time. Thus, the
`
`Court should preclude any such evidence or argument regarding Intent IQ and Datonics.
`
`III. REFERENCES TO THE ASSERTION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
`
`The Court should preclude AlmondNet’s attempt to attack the credibility of a fact witness
`
`or otherwise contest his testimony by referring to an assertion of attorney-client privilege.
`
`Amazon intends to call Mr. Daniel Jaye as a fact witness. During Mr. Jaye’s deposition,
`
`AlmondNet’s counsel asked him to disclose what his lawyers told him during a break. But under
`
`this Court’s standing order governing proceedings: “Counsel may confer with witnesses during
`
`breaks in a deposition without waiving any otherwise applicable privilege.” See (OGP) 4.3—
`
`Patent Cases (April 4, 2023) at 9. Accordingly, to preserve the privilege, Mr. Jaye’s lawyer
`
`instructed him not to answer the question and Mr. Jaye followed that instruction. In particular,
`
`Mr. Jaye clarified his earlier testimony that providing profile information to an ad server authorized
`
`the server to display an advertisement.3 AlmondNet’s invalidity expert, Jason Frankovitz,
`
`improperly used that proper privilege instruction as a basis to opine that Mr. Jaye was not a credible
`
`
`3 Mr. Jaye clarified his previous answer because the question posed by counsel was not clear
`as to the specific meaning of certain terms used in the asserted patents (e.g., “authorized”) and he
`reinforced his response when questioned by Almondnet’s counsel. (See Jaye Dep. Tr. at 60:13-
`63:16, 93:20-96:12 (Mr. Jaye clarifying his initial response), 97:9-23 (reinforcing testimony
`regarding “authorization”), 98:9-23 (same).)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 13 of 18
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 13 of 18
`
`witness.* AlmondNet intends to present this opinion to the jury and further attack Mr. Jaye on
`
`cross-examination due to the invocation of the attorney-client privilege.
`
`In other words, AlmondNetseeks to draw a negative inference from the proper assertion
`
`of privilege. Such a tactic is unfairly prejudicial, has no probative value, and undermines the
`
`purposeof the attorney-client privilege and the Court’s standing order. The Federal Circuit has
`
`ruled that “[a] jury should not be invited or instructed to draw a negative inference from a proper
`
`invocation of the attorney-client privilege.” Datapoint Corp. v. Picturetel Corp., Case Nos.
`
`98-1341, 98-1367, 98-1368, 1999 WL 507141, at *4 (Fed. Cir. July 15, 1999): see also Knorr-
`
`Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(“We now hold that this rule [against allowing a finding of an adverse inference based on the
`
`assertion of privilege] applies to the same extent in patent cases as in other areas of law.”).
`
`Allowing such an adverse inference would penalize the proper invocation ofthe privilege, creating
`
`“seriously harmful consequences,” such as discouraging clients from making full disclosure to
`
`their attorneys. See United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., 241 F. Supp. 3d 37, 55
`
`(D.D.C.), judgment aff'd, 709 Fed. Appx. 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017) citing Upjohn Co. v. United States,
`
`449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981).
`
`Manycourts have held similarly. See, e.g., IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp., No. 2:04-CV-
`
`1676-RCJ-RJJ, 2008 WL 11451148, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008) N. States Power Co. v. City of
`
`Ashland, Wis., No. 12-CV-602-BBC, 2015 WL 1745880, at *11 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 16, 2015)
`
`Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. A-B Distributors, Inc., No. 95-241-CIV-J-20, 1996 WL 34719787, at *1
`
`4 AlmondNet’s expert used Mr. Jaye’s assertion of privilege
`
`
`
`testimony “crosses the line under Rule 702 sinceit
`Such
`ovitz Rebuttal Rep., | 348-351.)
`decides an issue for the jury whoserole is to draw conclusions about the credibility of a witness.”
`Mims v. Davis, No. A-19-CV-788-LY, 2020 WL 4738372, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2020); see
`also, Vasquez v. Hall, No. 1:19-CV-405-SH, 2020 WL 9597732, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2020).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`(M.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 1996) (citing A–B Dick Co. v. Marr, 95 F. Supp. 83, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1950)).
`
`Because the invocation of the privilege during Mr. Jaye’s deposition was proper, defendants
`
`respectfully request the Court grant this motion under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`IV. REFERENCES TO ENHANCED DAMAGES OR EXCEPTIONAL CASE
`
`The Court should preclude any argument, evidence, testimony, or other references to issues
`
`to be decided by the Court, such as exceptional case/enhanced damages, attorney’s fees, or post
`
`and pre-trial interest.
`
`The Court should preclude any argument, evidence, and testimony, offered in support of,
`
`or otherwise directed to, “enhanced” damages available under 35 U.S.C. § 284, because
`
`AlmondNet is barred from such recovery for failure to plead it. (See Dkt. 68 at 18). Its pleadings
`
`neither stated such claim in this case, nor contained the requisite “demand for the relief sought.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3); see ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns., Inc., No. 2:10-cv-
`
`248, 2011 WL 4899922, at *2-4 (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2011) (contrasting the pleading requirements
`
`for availability of enhanced damages versus supplemental damages; explaining enhanced damages
`
`are punitive and must be specifically requested in the complaint separate from compensatory
`
`damages, because supplemental damages fall within a general demand for compensatory damages
`
`and require no separate demand). It is no answer that its Prayer for Relief included a request for
`
`“judgment in favor of Plaintiff that Defendant has willfully infringed the Asserted Patents,” (Dkt.
`
`68 at 18), because in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v Pulse Elecs.,
`
`Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), it is settled that “[w]illfulness and enhancement are separate issues.”
`
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1295 (2023) (citing Halo, 579 U.S. at 106).
`
`Enhanced damages “need not follow automatically from” a finding willfulness. Halo, 579 U.S. at
`
`106.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`Moreover, even if AlmondNet was not barred from such relief, “the issue of punishment
`
`by enhancement is for the court and not the jury.” Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Riviera Maynex
`
`Enterprises, Inc., 946 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970
`
`F.2d 816, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“An award of enhanced damages . . . is committed to the discretion
`
`of the trial court.”). These issues are irrelevant to the issues for trial and would unfairly prejudice
`
`Amazon and risks misleading and confusing the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also, e.g.,
`
`CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-CV-00513-ADA, Dkt. 204 at 6 (Nov. 8, 2021)
`
`(granting “Defendant’s MIL 3: No Argument, Evidence or Questions to issues to be decided by
`
`the Court, such as injunction/post-trial damages, exceptional case/enhanced damages, attorneys’
`
`fees, or post and pre-trial interest”); accord Halo, 579 U.S. at 112 (Breyer J., concurring)
`
`(explaining policy served by § 298 in preventing argument about lack of an opinion of counsel
`
`“where both ‘advice of counsel’ and ‘increased damages’ are at issue”).
`
`Similarly, the Court should preclude any reference to issues directed to whether this is an
`
`“exceptional case,” under § 285. While in contrast to the remedy of enhanced damages under §
`
`284, AlmondNet did plead such a request (Dkt. 68 at 18), exclusion from the trial of any evidence
`
`or argument advanced for purposes of showing an “exceptional case” is likewise inappropriate, as
`
`the question is one also one of equity, reserved exclusively to the courts. Halo, 579 U.S. at 105
`
`(citing Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 555) (“Our recent
`
`decision in Octane Fitness arose in a different context [§ 285] but points in the same direction.”).
`
`As such, the Court should preclude any such evidence or argument regarding equitable claims,
`
`including enhanced damages.5
`
`
`
`
`5 This is also consistent with the Court’s MIL No. 5 precluding argument and evidence related
`only to equitable defenses and counterclaims.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`Dated: September 13, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Deron R. Dacus (TX Bar #00790553)
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: (903) 705-1117
`Fax: (903) 581-2543
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Christopher L. Larson
`
`J. David Hadden (CA Bar No. 176148)
`Email: dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov (CA Bar No. 215636)
`Email: sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ravi R. Ranganath (CA Bar No. 272981)
`Email: rranganath@fenwick.com
`Johnson K. Kuncheria (TX Bar No. 24070092)
`Email: jkuncheria@fenwick.com
`Johnathan L. Chai (CA Bar No. 339315)
`Email: jchai@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Tel: (650) 988-8500
`Fax: (650) 938-5200
`
`Todd R. Gregorian (CA Bar No. 236096)
`Email: tgregorian@fenwick.com
`Eric B. Young, (CA Bar No. 318754)
`Email: eyoung@fenwick.com
`Dargaye Churnet (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: dchurnet@fenwick.com
`Christopher L. Larson (CA Bar No. 308247)
`Email: clarson@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Tel: (415) 875-2300
`
`Jeffrey A. Ware (WA Bar No. 43779)
`Email: jware@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`401 Union Street, 5th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Tel: (206) 389-4510
`
`James S. Trainor (NY Bar No. 3995826)
`Email: jtrainor@fenwick.com
`Jessica Lin (NY Bar No. 5035860)
`Email: jessica.lin@fenwick.com
`Eric Menist (NY Bar No. 5721568)
`Email: emenist@fenwick.com
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`902 Broadway, 18th Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 921-2001
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES
`LLC, and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 199 Filed 09/20/23 Page 18 of 18
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served with a true and correct copy of this document on September 13, 2023, via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV 5(a)(3). Additionally, this document and the
`
`attachments thereto were served via email on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher L. Larson
`Christopher L. Larson
`
`
`
`12
`
`