Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`
`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.,
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`AMAZON’S OPPOSITION TO ALMONDNET’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`OPPOSED ALMONDNET MIL NO. 1
`
`OPPOSED ALMONDNET MIL NO. 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`OPPOSED ALMONDNET MIL NO. 3
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`4
`
`6
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Abbott Labs. v. Imclone Sys., Inc.,
`554 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D. Mass. 2008) ..........................................................................................4
`Adams Lab’ys, Inc. v. Jacobs Eng'g Co.,
`761 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................8
`Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`No. 1:20-CV-1589, Dkt. 501 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2023) ................................................................1
`Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc.,
`318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`Blackbird Tech LLC, v. ELB Elecs., Inc.,
`895 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................2, 4
`Buyerleverage Email Sols., LLC v. SBC Internet Servs., Inc.,
`No. 11-645-RGA, 2013 WL 5730426 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2013) .................................................4
`Curtis Mfg. Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp.,
`933 F. Supp. 94 (D.N.H. 1995) ..................................................................................................7
`Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship,
`778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................3
`Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`576 F. Supp. 3d 458 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (Albright, J.) ................................................................2
`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) aff’d, 830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...........................4
`Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................4
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................7
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corp.,
`344 F. App’x 607 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................3
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................3
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................7
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................................3
`Ryan v. Miller,
`303 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2002).......................................................................................................8
`U.S. 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
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................7
`Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-062-wmc, 2015 WL 13547000 (W.D. Wis. Sep. 28, 2015) .....................................6
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................................7
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................7
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 .............................................................................................................................6
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 .............................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 16
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 16
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibits to the Declaration of Christopher L. Larson in Support of Amazon’s Opposition
`
`to AlmondNet, Inc.’s Motions in Limine are cited herein as noted in the table below:
`
`Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 1:20-CV-1589, Dkt. 501 (D. Del. Jan.
`
`27, 2023)=SupplementalExpertReportofDr.EricKoskinen
`
`Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of Henry Houh, PhD, dated August 15,
`2023 (“8/15 Houh Dep.”)
`
`1999 (D0517)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of Henry Houh, PhD, dated August 30,
`2023 (“8/30 Houh Dep.”)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of Scott Hayden, dated April 18, 2023
`
`Omnibus Supplemental Objections and Responses of Defendants
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon WebServices,
`Inc. to Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc.’s Interrogatories (Nos. 1-27)
`
`Third Supplemental Initial Disclosures of Defendants Amazon.com,Inc.,
`Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon WebServices, Inc., dated May 31,
`2023
`
`SEC Form 10-K for DoubleClick Inc., for the fiscal year ended December31,
`2004 (D0457)
`
`SEC Form 10-Q for DoubleClick Inc., for the quarterly period ended March
`31, 2005 (D0547)
`
`SEC Form 10-K/A for DoubleClick Inc., for the year ended December31,
`1998 (D0515)
`
`SEC Form 10-K for DoubleClick Inc., for the fiscal year ended December31,
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`OPPOSED ALMONDNET MIL NO. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`AlmondNet acknowledges that the August 23 deadline for Daubert motions has long
`
`passed. (Dkt. 174 (“Mot.”) at 4). Yet AlmondNet’s motion is precisely that—in its opening
`
`sentence, AlmondNet explicitly “moves to preclude” as “unreliable” opinions of Dr. Houh. (Id.
`
`at 1).1 That AlmondNet violated the Court’s scheduling order is sufficient reason to deny its
`
`motion. (Ex. 1, Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 1:20-CV-1589, Dkt. 501 (D. Del. Jan.
`
`27, 2023) (denying motion in limine for violating the scheduling order because it “is in fact a
`
`Daubert motion, dressed up to look like a motion in limine.”).)
`
`AlmondNet blames its delay on Dr. Houh, arguing that he waited until his August 30
`
`deposition to disclose the unremarkable proposition that,
`
`
`
` (Mot. at 4.) Moreover, AlmondNet first
`
`raised this issue in Dr. Koskinen’s supplemental report on August 9 (without permission). (See
`
`Ex. 2, at ¶¶ 14, 20.)2 As a result, Dr. Houh had no opportunity to submit his own report in response
`
`to those belated opinions. And, contrary to AlmondNet’s arguments, it had ample opportunity to
`
`ask Dr. Houh specific questions on this topic during his second August 15 deposition but chose
`
`not to do so. Indeed, Dr. Houh even invited that questioning during that 7-hour deposition, stating
`
`that
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 3 (“8/15 Houh Dep.”) at 106:2-8, 108:10-12.) Thus, AlmondNet’s argument for why
`
`it “could not have moved” earlier is simply an excuse without merit. (Mot. at 4.)
`
`AlmondNet’s arguments in the Daubert motions that it did file concerning Dr. Houh
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added.
`2 AlmondNet also raises another prosecution history argument for the first time in its Daubert
`motion that does not appear in either of Dr. Koskinen’s infringement reports. (See Dkt. 134 at 8-
`9 (arguing “directing” in the claims covers both “directly” directing and “indirectly” directing).)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`expose AlmondNet’s intent to argue at trial that applicant’s file history statements broaden the
`
`scope of its claims. (Dkt. 134 at 8-9.) AlmondNet now seeks to silence Dr. Houh from providing
`
`rebuttal testimony as to why a skilled artisan would not view those statements as broadening. But
`
`as a matter of law, “the prosecution history [is reviewed] from the perspective of an ordinary
`
`artisan and what he would understand from its contents.” Blackbird Tech LLC, v. ELB Elecs.,
`
`Inc., 895 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2018).3 Accordingly, no basis exists to silence Dr. Houh from
`
`testifying based on how an ordinary artisan would understand the contents of the same file history,
`
`including any relevant context, such as whether applicant’s statements were made to secure
`
`patentability and whether the Examiner acknowledged those statements.4
`
`Contrary to AlmondNet’s suggestion, Dr. Houh does not intend to offer a legal opinion that
`
`file history statements have effect “only” if they are accepted or responded to by the Examiner.
`
`(Mot. at 1.) Instead, Dr. Houh will testify that
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Ex. 4 (“8/30 Houh Dep.”) at
`
`25:15-26:19.) Nor did Dr. Houh testify that file history statements could “only” narrow claim
`
`scope. (Mot. at 2.) Rather, Dr. Houh testified to his understanding, applied in his opinions, that
`
`unconstrued terms are “
`
`
`
`.” (Id. at 10:8-
`
`
`3 Moreover, as this Court recognizes, there is no critical flaw in an expert applying the ordinary
`meaning of an unconstrued term based on his understanding of the term in view of its use in the
`patent. Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 3d 458, 463 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (Albright,
`J.).
`
`4 Here, applicant’s statements are embedded in what appears to be self-serving submissions—
`(i) an applicant-initiated preliminary amendment; and (ii) an applicant-drafted report of an
`interview held with the Examiner. (Dkt. No. 135-9 at 2 (document titled “Second Supplemental
`Preliminary Amendment”); see also id. at 15 (applicant asserting that certain claims were
`“canceled voluntarily for reasons having nothing to do with patentability.”); Dkt. No. 135-8 at 33,
`35 (applicant-drafted document titled “Interview Report”).)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`11.) Dr. Houh testified that “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.” (Id. at 33:12-34:4.) Dr.
`
`Houh’s rebuttal testimony comports with the law because “representations during prosecution
`
`cannot enlarge the content of the specification.” Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132,
`
`1140 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Although the prosecution history can and should be used to understand
`
`the language used in the claims, it ... cannot ‘enlarge, diminish, or vary’ the limitations in the
`
`claims.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting
`
`Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 227 (1880)).5
`
`And file history statements do not always “illuminate” the plain meaning, as AlmondNet
`
`urges. (Mot. at 3-4.) Indeed, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation
`
`between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks
`
`the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). And file history statements may be
`
`weighed, and even discounted, especially when they seek to enlarge or otherwise conflict with the
`
`specification. See, e.g., Biogen, Inc., 318 F.3d at 1137-40 (rejecting argument that prosecution
`
`statements support broader construction because they improperly enlarge scope of specification);
`
`Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 344 F. App’x 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(explaining that “when the prosecution history appears in conflict with the specification, any
`
`
`5 AlmondNet also relies on Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`2015), to suggest that the Examiner’s statements do not matter. (Mot. at 2.) But in that case, the
`patentee argued that the Examiner’s actions meant that “limiting statements [the patentee] made
`during prosecution do not limit the claims.” Id. Here, AlmondNet attempts to use prosecution
`history to broaden the claims, and it identifies no authority finding it is improper to consider the
`overall context of such broadening statements, including the Examiner’s treatment of them.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the specification.”); Buyerleverage Email Sols., LLC v.
`
`SBC Internet Servs., Inc., No. 11-645-RGA, 2013 WL 5730426, *3 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2013)
`
`(refusing to give weight to prosecution statements in interview summary that suggested broader
`
`claim scope in part because there is “no credible evidence in the prosecution history that the
`
`inventor contemplated” a broader meaning “until long after the filing of the patents in suit.”).
`
`Finally, AlmondNet identifies no authority that suggests Dr. Houh applied an incorrect
`
`understanding of the law. Indeed, three of its four cases involve using the file history to narrow
`
`claim scope. (Mot. at 4-5.); GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 839, 855-56 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2015) aff’d, 830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Apple entitled to argue based on file history that
`
`iPhone is a phone and not a pager); Ultravision Techs., LLC v. Govision, LLC, No. 2022-1098,
`
`2023 WL 2182285, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2023) (affirming narrow construction of waterproof
`
`as “IP 65 or higher” based on specification and file history); Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T
`
`Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming narrow construction of “high
`
`QoS” as at least 1 Mbps based on the file history). And the fourth case stands for “[d]isclaimer
`
`does not apply where the statements in the prosecution history are subject to competing reasonable
`
`interpretations.” Abbott Labs. v. Imclone Sys., Inc., 554 F. Supp. 2d 91, 96 (D. Mass. 2008). In
`
`contrast, where the Federal Circuit held that the file history supports a broader construction, it was
`
`relevant that a certain “limitation was expressly removed from the claim to secure patentability
`
`with the examiner’s blessing and agreement.” Blackbird Tech LLC, 895 F.3d at 1377-79. Here
`
`too, Dr. Houh would address whether the applicant’s statements were made “to secure
`
`patentability,” and whether they were with “the examiner’s blessing and agreement.” See id.
`
`II.
`
`OPPOSED ALMONDNET MIL NO. 2
`
`The Court should not exclude evidence of Amazon’s practice of its own or third-party
`
`patents. This evidence goes to damages, not infringement. Georgia-Pacific governs, and the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`authority AlmondNet cites in support of its position is off the mark. The party that stands to be
`
`prejudiced by such exclusion is Amazon, not AlmondNet. AlmondNet’s motion should be denied.6
`
`Amazon will not offer at trial evidence that it practices its own or licensed patents to show
`
`non-infringement. The cases AlmondNet cites largely stand for the proposition that it would be
`
`improper to permit Amazon to do so for that particular purpose because such evidence is irrelevant
`
`to infringement. (Mot. at 5.)7 That is unremarkable, and Amazon does not contend the law is
`
`otherwise. It is similarly unsurprising, not compelling, that Amazon’s damages expert, Mr.
`
`Bakewell, offers no specific opinions as to whether or how value-adding functionality anchored to
`
`Amazon’s accused products are covered by the claims of patents other than those belonging to
`
`AlmondNet, and AlmondNet cites no authority requiring him to do so, in order that such evidence
`
`be admissible for the limited purpose of supporting the accused infringer’s damages case.
`
`Precisely this type of evidence is properly considered on damages as inclusive of the
`
`Georgia-Pacific factors. E.g., Georgia-Pacific factors 2, 8, 13; see also Lucent Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1337-39 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (apportionment also analyzed
`
`against “other patents appropriated by the infringer”). AlmondNet acknowledges both Amazon’s
`
`and AlmondNet’s experts assess such evidence, because both opinions answer the ultimate
`
`question applied here: what royalty rate, under the circumstances, would Amazon agree to pay for
`
`a license in a hypothetical negotiation at the alleged time of first infringement? (Mot. at 5.) The
`
`
`6 AlmondNet does not describe how such evidence will mislead or confuse the jury, or
`what, if any, undue prejudice AlmondNet will suffer if Amazon presents the evidence.
`7 EcoFactor, Inc. and Proxense, LLC lack explanation and AlmondNet recites the motion
`title, not the Court’s holding. EcoFactor does not discuss whether the evidence was sought to
`prove non-infringement or for damages. The Court in VLSI Tech. LLC and MV3 Partners did not
`issue a blanket preclusion as AlmondNet incorrectly suggests. VLSI precluded Intel from using
`the fact that Intel has patents generally, not that Intel cannot proffer specific patents covering the
`accused products to inform the hypothetical negotiation. MV3 precluded Roku from making
`statements during voir dire and opening arguments yet permitted Roku to proffer this topic at trial.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 11 of 16
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 11 of 16
`
`fact that other patents might also cover the accused products, that Amazon might reasonably
`
`believe it to be a possibility, or that Amazon owns orlicensed rights to practice such other patents
`
`are among the factors defining the hypothetical negotiation. Amazon’s Scott Haydentestified at
`
`least thatee. (See Ex. 5 at 36:7-15,
`
`47:5-48:11; 71:8-18).° It is entirely appropriate for Mr. Bakewellto rely on such testimony and
`
`profferit at trial. See F.R.E. 602, 703; Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`
`062-winc, 2015 WL 13547000, at *7-8 (W.D. Wis. Sep. 28, 2015) (denying motion in /imine to
`
`preclude evidence of defendant’s patents based on relevance to the hypothetical negotiation).
`
`The party at risk of prejudice here is not AlmondNet, but Amazon.
`
`Thereal issue is
`
`AlmondNet’s distrust of the jury to comprehend that, even if the accused products practice other
`
`patents, Amazon may nonetheless be liable for infringement. If Amazonis barred from offering
`
`evidence that its accused products may practice its own or others’ patents, however, it will be
`
`precluded from proffering that the value of AlmondNet’s patents to Amazon,in the absence of
`
`rights to additional patents implicated by its targeted advertising business, would have been less
`
`than AlmondNet’s damagescase will suggest; that is, Amazon will be denied the right to offer the
`
`full and fair Georgia-Pacific analysis contemplated by law and, worse, the jury denied the
`
`opportunity to consider it. That would be quite unfair, particularly where (1) AlmondNet never
`
`movedto bifurcate the issues of liability and damagesattrial, and (2) because any potential risk
`
`of prejudice to AlmondNetis cured by an appropriately tailored jury instruction.
`
`Il.
`
`OPPOSED ALMONDNETMIL NO.3
`
`DoubleClick co-founder and a non-party fact witness for Amazon, Kevin O’Connor,
`
`intendsto testify from personal knowledge about DoubleClick’s prior art advertising network, its
`
`8
`
`_(See Ex. 6 at 26 (i
`); Ex. 7 at 5.)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`revolutionary DART platform and features, its visitor profile collection and targeted advertising,
`
`and its widespread adoption and commercial success. Such evidence concerning DoubleClick’s
`
`invention story is relevant to Amazon’s invalidity case9 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, as well as
`
`rebuttal for any alleged objective indicia AlmondNet may assert. The evidence AlmondNet seeks
`
`to exclude is not like the irrelevant evidence in the cases it cites.
`
`AlmondNet intends to have its inventor and sole corporate witness, Mr. Roy Shkedi, testify
`
`that AlmondNet was commercially successful allegedly due to its asserted patents. The
`
`DoubleClick prior art system’s widespread commercial adoption and success is relevant objective
`
`evidence that the jury should be permitted to hear about other products in the field to rebut
`
`AlmondNet’s alleged commercial success. See W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc.,
`
`626 F.3d 1361, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (ruling that patent owner “cannot therefore claim any
`
`commercial success that arose from features of the system found in the prior art as a consideration
`
`for nonobviousness of its claimed invention.”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior
`
`art, the success is not pertinent.”). The financial success of DoubleClick’s prior art system is
`
`likewise relevant as an objective comparison tending to rebut any nexus between AlmondNet’s
`
`alleged success and the claimed inventions. See, e.g., Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`
`392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Our cases make clear that a ‘nexus must be established
`
`between the merits of the claimed invention and evidence of commercial success before that
`
`evidence may become relevant to the issue of obviousness.’”); Curtis Mfg. Co. v. Plasti-Clip
`
`Corp., 933 F. Supp. 94, 101 (D.N.H. 1995) (excluding only the current financial condition and
`
`
`9 DoubleClick’s SEC filings are separately relevant to DoubleClick’s founding as a pioneer in
`online advertising, its development story, DoubleClick’s platform, products, release dates, and
`public availability. See, e.g., Ex. 8 (D0457) at 3-5, 7-9, 28, 36; Ex. 9 (D0547) at pdf 6, 22, 28, 43;
`Ex. 10 (D0515) at pdf 4-12, 17-18, 32-33, 46-47; Ex. 11 (D0517) at pdf 4-10, 12-13, 22, 42.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`wealth of a party as irrelevant but permitting relevant evidence of that party’s compensation).
`
`AlmondNet is correct that relevant evidence of DoubleClick’s financial success will
`
`prejudice its case because it will show the jury that AlmondNet was not the commercial success it
`
`claims. But every fact that hurts a case is prejudicial—and the standard is unfair prejudice. There
`
`is no unfair prejudice here where AlmondNet intends to put its commercial success at issue.
`
`Fundamental fairness dictates that Amazon should have the right to rebut this showing by offering
`
`the jury an objective measure of the commercial success of other products in the same field.
`
`Nor do the cases relied upon by AlmondNet provide a basis to exclude relevant rebuttal
`
`evidence of a third-party competitor’s financial success. Instead, AlmondNet relies on decisions
`
`it admits concerned irrelevant evidence or argument about the relative size of a party or parties.
`
`(See Mot. at 8 (citing Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd., 297 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (11th Cir. 2002)
`
`(arguments and evidence on the parties’ relative wealth ruled improper in contract case); Adams
`
`Lab’ys, Inc. v. Jacobs Eng’g Co., 761 F.2d 1218, 1226 (7th Cir. 1985) (“appealing to the sympathy
`
`of jurors through references to the relative wealth of the defendants in contrast to the relative
`
`poverty of the plaintiffs is improper and may be cause for reversal” in negligence and contract
`
`case); Garcia v. Sam Tanksley Trucking, Inc., 708 F.2d 519, 522-23 (10th Cir. 1983) (emotional
`
`appeal in closing to plaintiffs “mak[ing] a meager living” and defendant as “a giant corporation”
`
`improper in personal injury case); U.S. v. Bill Harbert Int’l Const., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 897-98
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2010) (ruling irrelevant evidence of third-party asset manager’s finances to make
`
`“arguments to the jury about a defendant’s wealth” prejudicial in government contract case)).)10
`
`All AlmondNet’s motions in limine should be denied for the reasons stated herein.
`
`
`10 AlmondNet cites Ryan v. Miller, 303 F.3d 231, 253 (2d Cir. 2002), a habeus corpus case, in
`which police officer testimony was deemed irrelevant to the defendant’s confession, and which
`has no apparent relevance to this MIL.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 22, 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
`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)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`Email: emenist@fenwick.com
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 217 Filed 09/29/23 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`
`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 22, 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
`
`
`
`11
`
`