Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC; and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 2 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: The Court should exclude of testimony
`and argument based on legally incorrect opinions about the effect of an applicant’s
`statements made to the patent office during patent prosecution............................................1
`
`II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: The Court should preclude evidence,
`testimony, and argument alleging that Amazon’s Accused Products practice its own or
`others’ patents. .......................................................................................................................5
`
`III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: The Court should exclude documents,
`testimony, and argument relating only to the financial success of DoubleClick. .................6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Lab’ys v. Imclone Sys., Inc.,
`554 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D. Mass. 2008).......................................................................................... 3
`
`Adams Lab’ys, Inc. v. Jacobs Eng’g Co.,
`761 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd.,
`297 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Curtis Mfg. Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp.,
`933 F. Supp. 94 (D.N.H. 1995) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. ecobee, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00428-ADA, Dkt. No. 209 (W.D. Tex. June 1, 2023) .......................................... 5
`
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 2, 4
`
`Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00511-ADA, 2021 WL 2587713 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2021) .............................. 5
`
`Garcia v. Sam Tanksley Trucking, Inc.,
`708 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`108 F. Supp. 3d 839 (N.D. Cal. 2015)....................................................................................... 3
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`MV3 Partners v. Roku,
`No. 6:18-cv-308-ADA, Dkt. No. 332 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2020) ........................................... 6
`
`Proxense, LLC, v. Samsung Elec., Co.,
`No. 6:21-cv-210-ADA, Dkt. No. 161 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2023) ............................................. 5
`
`Ryan v. Miller,
`303 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 4 of 14
`
`U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int’l Const., Inc.,
`608 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Ultravision Techs., LLC v. Govision, LLC,
`No. 2022-1098, 2023 WL 2182285 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2023) .................................................. 4
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00057-ADA, Dkt. No. 508 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2021) ........................................ 5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .................................................................................................................. 4, 5, 6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ................................................................................................................... 5, 6, 7
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ........................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 701 ....................................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ....................................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 5 of 14
`
`I.
` PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: The Court should exclude of testimony
`and argument based on legally incorrect opinions about the effect of an applicant’s
`statements made to the Patent Office during patent prosecution.
`
`AlmondNet moves to preclude in limine unreliable and incorrect opinions about the effect
`
`of an applicant’s statements made to the Patent Office during the course of a patent’s prosecution.
`
`One of Amazon’s technical experts, Dr. Henry Houh, testified during his August 30, 2023
`
`deposition that,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and Dr. Houh’s expected testimony to a jury otherwise would be highly prejudicial. In limine
`
` Both of these positions are incorrect under the controlling law,
`
`preclusion is warranted.
`
`First, Dr. Houh testified during his August 30 deposition to
`
`
`
`
`
` See Ex. A at 21:5-19, 25:15-26:19, 28:11-30:4. For example,
`
`during deposition, Dr. Houh was asked:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As another example, Dr. Houh testified:
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 6 of 14
`
`Likewise, Dr. Houh stressed his view multiple times that
`
` Id. at 29:23-30:4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Houh’s August 30 testimony indicates that he may testify, or that Amazon may offer
`
`
`
`attorney argument, at trial that
`
`
`
` Indeed, this
`
`position is also one which Amazon has taken in briefing on pending dispositive and Daubert
`
`motions, despite not providing any authority in support of that seemingly unprecedented position.
`
`See, e.g., Dkt. No. 163 at 9 (dismissing effect of applicant’s statements in file history because
`
`“AlmondNet does not show they were ever acknowledged, much less accepted by the Examiner”).
`
`To the contrary, a claim term’s plain and ordinary meaning is informed by the intrinsic
`
`evidence, including specifically the contents of a patent’s file history,
`
`
`
`
`
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the
`
`interested public has the right to rely on the inventor’s statements made during prosecution,
`
`without attempting to decipher whether the examiner relied on them, or how much weight they
`
`were given”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 7 of 14
`
`The Court should exclude such “acceptance by the Examiner” attorney argument or
`expert testimony because it is based on incorrect legal principles and as such, it bears
`no relevance to the case and serves no purpose other than to confuse the jury and
`prejudice AlmondNet. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403.
`
`Second, Dr. Houh repeatedly testified that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. A at 36:9-19 (emphases added); see also id. at 22:12-23:3, 27:10-25.
`
`
`
`Dr. Houh’s (and Amazon’s) positions illustrated here are incorrect as a matter of law.
`
`
`
` AlmondNet is aware of
`
`no such authority. Rather, it is entirely proper to refer to statements made in the prosecution history
`
` but also to simply illuminate for a fact finder
`
`what the plain and ordinary meaning of a term should be. See, e.g., GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 108
`
`F. Supp. 3d 839, 855 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Apple’s support for its argument, including references to
`
`the prosecution history of the Asserted Patents, helped the jury to apply the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of ‘node’ to the accused devices, and thus was proper.”), aff’d, 830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Statements made by an applicant in prosecution may even serve as a basis to reject
`
`arguments for narrowed constructions based on a disclaimer theory. See, e.g., Abbott Lab’ys v.
`
`Imclone Sys., Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 91, 96 (D. Mass. 2008). In fact, “[t]he prosecution history is
`
`relevant for more than an evaluation of disclaimer—it provides additional context for evaluating
`
`how the term would be understood and how it was used in the patent.” Ultravision Techs., LLC v.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 8 of 14
`
`Govision, LLC, No. 2022-1098, 2023 WL 2182285, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2023).
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Houh’s testimony on this point (and any attorney argument related
`
`to it) is incorrect as a matter of law, not relevant to any issue in the case, and would confuse the
`
`jury and prejudice AlmondNet. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403.
`
`Third, Dr. Houh’s August 30 deposition occurred after the August 23 deadline in this case
`
`for the parties to file Daubert and dispositive motions, which was necessitated as a result of his
`
`failure to answer questions in prior depositions. Dr. Houh also did not include
`
`
`
`he served in this case. As such, AlmondNet could not have moved to preclude these unreliable and
`
`incorrect legal opinions on the original Daubert deadline. Moreover, the belated disclosure of these
`
`opinions also provides an additional reason to exclude such opinions from trial. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
` in any of the expert reports
`
`26(a)(2).
`
`In sum, it is indisputable that “[a]ny explanation, elaboration, or qualification presented by
`
`the inventor during patent examination is relevant” to the plain and ordinary meaning of claim
`
`terms in view of the intrinsic record. Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d
`
`1345, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Fenner, 778 F.3d at 1325. The law
`
`simply does not impose an additional requirement that
`
`
`
`
`
`as Dr. Houh and Amazon both contend. Attorney argument and expert testimony on these points
`
`should be excluded from the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 9 of 14
`
`II.
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: The Court should preclude evidence,
`testimony, and argument alleging that Amazon’s Accused Products practice its own or
`others’ patents.
`
`The Court should preclude any testimony, evidence, or argument that Amazon’s Accused
`
`Products practice its own patents or third-party patents. Any discussion or evidence regarding
`
`specific Amazon’s patents or third-party patents is not relevant to any issue here and would only
`
`serve to confuse or mislead the jury and prejudice AlmondNet. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403, 602, and
`
`701-702; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. For example, Amazon intends to present improper and unsupported
`
`testimony, evidence, and argument regarding
`
`
`
` at least through its damages expert, Mr. Bakewell. See, e.g., Ex. G ¶373 (citing AMZ-AN-
`
`00019952-22583, which includes a number of specific patents other than the Asserted Patents);
`
`Ex. H (exemplary such patent on Amazon’s trial exhibit list, Exhibit D0771).
`
`However, settled law demonstrates that an accused infringer’s or a third-party’s specific
`
`patents are not relevant to the issues here. 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.”). This Court routinely recognizes the minimal relevance
`
`and severe prejudice accompanied by a defendant’s discussion of its own patents. See Freshub,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00511-ADA, 2021 WL 2587713, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 13,
`
`2021) (“Amazon cannot argue they do not infringe because they have patents.”); Ex. I, EcoFactor,
`
`Inc. v. ecobee, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00428-ADA, Dkt. No. 209 at 5 (W.D. Tex. June 1, 2023) (granting
`
`motion in limine to “preclude reliance upon ecobee’s own patents … which threaten juror
`
`confusion”); Ex. J, Proxense, LLC, v. Samsung Elec., Co., No. 6:21-cv-210-ADA, Dkt. No. 161 at
`
`3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2023) (precluding defendant from referencing any of defendant’s patents,
`
`including any implication that defendant’s patents also cover the accused products); Ex. K, VLSI
`
`Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00057-ADA, Dkt. No. 508 at 4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2021)
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 10 of 14
`
`(granting motion in limine that “[accused infringer] is not going to connect, intimate or say
`
`explicitly that the fact that they have patents has any impact with respect to the value of [patentee’s]
`
`patents”); Ex. L, MV3 Partners v. Roku, No. 6:18-cv-308-ADA, Dkt. No. 332 at 4 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Sept. 29, 2020) (granting motion in limine to exclude “[a]llegations that any of [defendant]’s
`
`patents are related to and/or cover the accused products”).
`
`Moreover, no Amazon witness has testified about or opined on specific Amazon or
`
`Amazon-licensed patents. Indeed, Amazon has not identified any expert opinion
`
`
`
`.
`
`See Dkt. No. 129 at 4-6 (AlmondNet moving to strike and to exclude under Daubert Mr.
`
`Bakewell’s unsupported statements that
`
`). Amazon
`
`cannot now circumvent its disclosure requirements and offer irrelevant and prejudicial testimony
`
`through its experts, fact witnesses, or attorney argument at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401-403, 701-702. Thus, testimony that
`
` is not
`
`only irrelevant and prejudicial, but also unsupported by any competent evidence of record.
`
`For the reasons stated above, the Court should preclude any testimony, evidence, and
`
`argument about specific patents other than the Asserted Patents—specifically, Amazon or third-
`
`party patents—because that testimony, evidence, and argument will only serve to confuse and
`
`mislead the jury and incurably prejudice AlmondNet.
`
`III.
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: The Court should exclude documents,
`testimony, and argument relating only to the financial success of DoubleClick.
`
`Amazon intends to present improper documents, testimony, and argument concerning the
`
`financial success of third-party DoubleClick Inc. (“DoubleClick”). For example, Amazon
`
`identified a third-party financial report summarizing the financial size and wealth of DoubleClick.
`
`See Ex. B. It also identified a document entitled, “Google to Buy DoubleClick for $3.1 billion.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 11 of 14
`
`See Ex. C. Amazon intends to present numerous SEC filings (Exhibits D0449-D0483 and D0514-
`
`D0547) regarding DoubleClick’s financial performance and condition. See, e.g., Exs. C-D.
`
`Amazon’s invalidity expert Dr. Ward Hanson’s report contains financial success language as well
`
`and cites to such problematic documents. See, e.g., Ex. F ¶95 & n.43. And Amazon intends to offer
`
`testimony from Mr. Kevin O’Connor, CEO of DoubleClick, relating to DoubleClick’s financial
`
`success. See Hayden Decl. ¶2. All of this evidence is irrelevant to any claim or defense in the case,
`
`is highly prejudicial to AlmondNet, and should be excluded under Rules 401 and 403.
`
`As a preliminary matter, the financial success of DoubleClick is not relevant to any issue
`
`in this case. While Amazon relies on the DoubleClick system as prior art, the financial success of
`
`DoubleClick (for example, that DoubleClick was sold to Google for over $3 billion) is clearly not
`
`relevant to Amazon’s invalidity analysis⎯whether any DoubleClick system on which Amazon
`
`relies anticipates or renders obvious any asserted claim. Indeed, the Court’s MIL No. 3 seemingly
`
`excludes presentation of DoubleClick’s financial size (Dkt. No. 104 at 2 (“The parties shall be
`
`precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any party’s overall
`
`financial size, wealth, or executive compensation.”)), yet Amazon made clear during a conference
`
`of counsel that it intends to present prejudicial evidence of DoubleClick’s financial success,
`
`supposedly to explain DoubleClick’s “background.” See Hayden Decl. ¶2. However, merely
`
`labeling financial success evidence as “background” evidence does not render it relevant to any
`
`issue in the case. See Fed. R. Evid. 402; Curtis Mfg. Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp., 933 F. Supp. 94, 101
`
`(D.N.H. 1995) (finding that evidence of “financial condition or wealth is irrelevant to [] patent
`
`infringement”).
`
`Evidence of DoubleClick’s financial success is also highly prejudicial, because a jury may
`
`improperly be swayed by the financial success of DoubleClick. Jurors may misconstrue this
`
`evidence as evidence supporting Amazon’s invalidity arguments. Jurors may also improperly
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 12 of 14
`
`judge AlmondNet by comparing AlmondNet’s financial status with DoubleClick’s. There is also
`
`a high risk that jurors may believe that DoubleClick’s prior art system on which Amazon relies
`
`must have “come first,” or somehow have been more inventive than the solutions described in the
`
`asserted claims, given DoubleClick’s success in the marketplace and the high price for which the
`
`overall company was sold. Given this highly prejudicial evidence and the lack of relevance of it,
`
`exclusion is appropriate. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403; Ryan v. Miller, 303 F.3d 231, 253 (2d Cir.
`
`2002) (finding that the district court erred in concluding testimony was admissible “background”
`
`evidence where the testimony was not relevant and was prejudicial).
`
`Indeed, exclusion of such irrelevant, highly prejudicial “financial success” evidence is
`
`commonplace. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int’l Const., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 897
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2010) (noting “information about the companies’ wealth was both irrelevant and
`
`prejudicial”); Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd., 297 F.3d 1172, 1178 (11th Cir. 2002) (“The general
`
`rule is that, during trial, ‘no reference should be made to the wealth or poverty of a party, nor
`
`should the financial status of one party be contrasted with the other’s.’”); Adams Lab’ys, Inc. v.
`
`Jacobs Eng’g Co., 761 F.2d 1218, 1226 (7th Cir. 1985) (noting “reference to the comparative size
`
`and financial wealth” of the parties is improper); Garcia v. Sam Tanksley Trucking, Inc., 708 F.2d
`
`519, 522 (10th Cir. 1983) (“Reference to the wealth or poverty of either party, or reflection on
`
`financial disparity, is clearly improper argument.”).
`
`For the reasons stated above and consistent with the Court’s MIL No. 3, the Court should
`
`exclude evidence, testimony, and argument concerning the financial success of DoubleClick,
`
`which is irrelevant and will highly prejudice AlmondNet and confuse the issues for the jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 13 of 14
`
`Date: September 13, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Amy E. Hayden
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Marc A. Fenster
`Benjamin T. Wang
`Adam Hoffman
`James A. Milkey
`Amy E. Hayden
`James S. Tsuei
`Jonathan Ma
`Daniel B. Kolko
`Jason M. Wietholter
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Tel: 310-826-7474
`Fax: 310-826-6991
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bwang@raklaw.com
`ahoffman@raklaw.com
`jmilkey@raklaw.com
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`jtsuei@raklaw.com
`jma@raklaw.com
`dkolko@raklaw.com
`jwietholter@raklaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff ALMONDNET, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 200 Filed 09/20/23 Page 14 of 14
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on September 13, 2023, counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served
`
`with a copy of the foregoing via email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Amy E. Hayden
` Amy E. Hayden
`
`
`
` 1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`