Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 15
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC; and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 15
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE
`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. ......................3
`
`III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE
`DOCUMENTS, TESTIMONY, AND ARGUMENT RELATING ONLY TO THE
`FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF DOUBLECLICK. ....................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 15
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Adams Lab’ys, Inc. v. Jacobs Eng’g Co.,
`761 F.2d 1218 (7th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Laboratories, Inc.,
`318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd.,
`297 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Buyerleverage Email Solutions, LLC v. SBC Internet Services, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-645-RGA, 2013 WL 5730426 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2013)............................................ 3
`
`Curtis Manufacturing v. Plasti-Clip Corp.,
`933 F. Supp. 94 (D.N.H. 1995) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Garcia v. Sam Tanksley Trucking, Inc.,
`708 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co.,
`797 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`No. 05-2433-JWL, 2007 WL 2572417 (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2007) ............................................... 7
`
`U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int’l Const., Inc.,
`608 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00057-ADA, Dkt. No. 508 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2021) ........................................ 7
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00057-ADA, Dkt. No. 368 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020) ....................................... 7
`
`Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-062-WMC, 2015 WL 13547000 (W.D. Wis. Sep. 28, 2015) .............................. 5, 6
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 .......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ............................................................................................................. 5, 6, 7, 10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ....................................................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 5 of 15
`
`I.
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: The Court should exclude testimony
`and argument based on legally incorrect opinions about the effect of an applicant’s
`statements made to the Patent Office during patent prosecution.
`
`Amazon does not actually dispute the substance of AlmondNet’s argument for MIL No. 1.
`
`It appears to concede it would be improper for Dr. Houh to testify at trial that (1) file history
`
`statements have weight only if the statements are “accepted” or “responded to” by the Examiner
`
`or that (2) any such statements could only have a narrowing effect on claim scope. With the parties
`
`in apparent agreement on these two issues (which, to be clear, are the two issues explicitly
`
`identified and moved on by AlmondNet in this MIL, see Mot. (Dkt. No. 174) at 1), the Court
`
`should grant AlmondNet’s MIL No. 1. Amazon, after all, does not object to the precise relief
`
`AlmondNet seeks as set forth in its papers.
`
`Amazon’s opposition instead speculates that AlmondNet’s MIL may be intended to
`
`“silence Dr. Houh from providing rebuttal testimony as to why a skilled artisan would not view
`
`[certain file history] statements as broadening.” Opp’n (Dkt. No. 210) at 2. But AlmondNet has
`
`not, and does not intend to, argue that an applicant’s statements can broaden the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of a claim term. Thus, on September 27, 2023, AlmondNet proposed the following 3
`
`stipulations to Amazon with the intent they resolve the parties’ dispute over AlmondNet’s MIL
`
`No. 1:
`
`• No argument or suggestion by any party that a statement made by an applicant
`during the prosecution of a patent application does not have any weight unless it is
`agreed or responded to by the Examiner.
`
`• No argument or suggestion by any party that a statement made by an applicant
`during patent prosecution can have only narrowing effect on claim terms and
`phrases.
`
`• No argument or suggestion by any party that a statement made by the applicant
`during patent prosecution can broaden any claim term or phrase beyond its plain
`and ordinary meaning in the context of the claims and specification.
`
`Ex. M at 1. Amazon declined this proposal on September 28, but provided no reason why it did
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 6 of 15
`
`so. Ex. N at 2. AlmondNet counsel followed up on September 29, asking: “Please provide an
`
`explanation of why you will not agree to this proposal, or provide an alternative stipulation.” Id.
`
`at 1-2. As of the filing of this reply on October 4, Amazon has not responded. Hayden Decl. ¶3.
`
`
`
`AlmondNet’s MIL No. 1 should be granted because both parties appear to agree that it
`
`would be legally improper for Dr. Houh to testify either that (1) an applicant’s statements have
`
`weight only if they are “examined” or “responded to” by an examiner, or that (2) statements in the
`
`file history can have only narrowing effect.
`
`For Amazon’s part, it now asserts that “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.” Opp’n at 2.1 Amazon also claims that Dr. Houh did not “testify that file history
`
`statements could ‘only’ narrow claim scope” (id.) and, presumably, will not do so at trial. In any
`
`event, both parties thus appear to agree that it would be legally improper for Dr. Houh to testify
`
`either that (1) an applicant’s statements have weight only if they are “examined” or “responded
`
`to” by an examiner, or that (2) statements in the file history can have only narrowing effect, or, as
`
`Amazon now claims, Dr. Houh will not offer any such opinions at trial. With the absence of any
`
`real dispute on the merits here, AlmondNet’s MIL No. 1 should be granted.
`
`Amazon’s arguments in opposition either are that AlmondNet’s motion is untimely because
`
`it was not filed at the deadline for Daubert motions (id. at 1), or otherwise premised on the
`
`speculative and specious allegation that AlmondNet will argue at trial that the file history can
`
`“broaden” claim scope beyond plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 1-4. Neither supports denial of
`
`the MIL.
`
`
`1 This assertion is in direct tension with Amazon’s earlier argument elsewhere denying the effect
`of file history statements because, for example, “AlmondNet does not show they were ever
`acknowledged, much less accepted by the Examiner.” Dkt. No. 163, at 9 (Section IV.B).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 7 of 15
`
`On timeliness, Amazon does not actually deny that the factual basis for AlmondNet’s MIL
`
`arose in Dr. Houh’s August 30 deposition, after the Daubert deadline. It instead suggests that
`
`AlmondNet is late because it was on notice of “this issue” because it was allegedly “raised” in
`
`AlmondNet’s August 9-dated supplemental expert report. Id. (citing Ex. 2 ¶¶14, 20). The cited
`
`paragraphs of that August 9 report (helpfully highlighted by Amazon), however, are simply not
`
`about whether Dr. Houh had, appeared to, or likely planned to subsequently give legally improper
`
`opinions about the effect of file history statements.
`
`The remainder of Amazon’s opposition are arguments and citations about whether file
`
`history statements can or should be read to broaden claim scope; this argument is sourced from
`
`various statements by Dr. Houh in his August 30 deposition.2 But no party in the case has argued
`
`that file history statements should be used to broaden a claim’s plain and ordinary meaning or
`
`scope, despite Amazon’s insinuation to the contrary. Thus, the MIL should be granted.
`
`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.
`
`Amazon seeks to introduce testimonial “evidence” that it practices various unidentified
`
`patents, even though Amazon has performed no technical analysis regarding whether any
`
`Amazon patents are practiced (much less any analysis of the specific value to Amazon of
`
`practicing any Amazon patents). Amazon itself concedes that the testimony it seeks to introduce
`
`
`2 Most of Amazon’s cited cases (see Opp’n at 3-4), including Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Laboratories,
`Inc., 318 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2003) are not even probative of the relevant legal issue. The
`operative finding in Biogen is that “representations during prosecution cannot enlarge the content
`of the specification.” Id. at 1140. It is not about whether file history statements can broaden what
`is otherwise plain and ordinary meaning of claims. Other cases cited by Amazon do not even say
`what Amazon claims they say. For example, the language quoted by Amazon from Buyerleverage
`Email Solutions, LLC v. SBC Internet Services, Inc. is not about whether a “broader” meaning is
`appropriate, but instead whether a construction that varied from the specification’s uniform
`disclosure of a given aspect of the invention was justified by file history statements. No. 11-cv-
`645-RGA, 2013 WL 5730426, at *3 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2013).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 8 of 15
`
`is rank speculation, unmoored from any specific facts. See Opp’n at 4-5 (intending to present as
`
`relevant “that other patents might also cover the accused products, [or] that Amazon might
`
`reasonably believe it to be a possibility”). This is precisely the type of irrelevant testimony that
`
`could only serve to prejudice AlmondNet and confuse the jury.
`
`Amazon agrees that “Amazon will not offer at trial evidence that it practices its own or
`
`licensed patents to show non-infringement,” admitting that “such evidence is irrelevant to
`
`infringement.” Opp’n at 5.3 Instead, Amazon contends that “such evidence [is] admissible for the
`
`limited purpose of supporting the accused infringer’s damages case.” Id. However, Amazon fails
`
`to explain how its unidentified patents are relevant to damages. Id. at 4-6. Indeed, Amazon admits
`
`that its “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.” Id. at 5 (emphasis in original). Mr. Bakewell’s failure
`
`to tie any allegations that Amazon practices unspecified patents to the value that those unspecified
`
`patents might even hypothetically provide to Amazon establishes the lack of relevance of his
`
`opinions.
`
`Indeed, Amazon alleges Mr. Bakewell’s unsupported and conclusory testimony is relevant
`
`only to Georgia-Pacific factors 2, 8, and 13. Opp’n at 5. But factor 2 relates to “rates paid by the
`
`licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit” (Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S.
`
`Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)), and Mr. Bakewell’s opinions do not
`
`relate to rates paid by Amazon for practice of its own patents, nor do those opinions allege those
`
`unidentified patents are comparable to the patents-in-suit. Factor 8 relates to the “established
`
`profitability” of the accused product, and does not involve patents at all. Id. And Factor 13 relates
`
`
`3 While Amazon argues that “any potential risk of prejudice to AlmondNet is cured by an
`appropriately tailored jury instruction,” Amazon has not offered an instruction for consideration.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 9 of 15
`
`to the “portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from
`
`[inter alia] non-patented elements.” Id. But again, Amazon admits that its expert provided no
`
`opinions regarding the relationship between any unidentified Amazon patents and “value-adding
`
`functionality” of the Accused Products. Finally, although Amazon misleadingly states that Lucent
`
`allows for apportionment to take into account “other patents appropriated by the infringer” (Opp’n
`
`at 5), Lucent clearly states that this is relevant only insofar as the asserted patents and
`
`“appropriated” patents “have jointly... contributed to the profits.” Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway,
`
`Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, Amazon admits that its expert provided no
`
`opinion as to whether the unidentified Amazon patents contributed to profitability, such that its
`
`expert testimony cannot be relevant for this purpose.
`
`The issue here is not a “distrust of the jury” nor any purported failure on the part of
`
`AlmondNet for not moving to bifurcate. Opp’n at 6. Rather, the issue is that Amazon fails to
`
`articulate any coherent theory as to how its own patents are relevant to damages, while also
`
`attempting to circumvent the Rules and this Court’s standing in limine order to sandbag
`
`AlmondNet. Fed. R. Evid. 403, 702; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 37; Dkt. No. 104 at 4 (Court MIL No. 23);
`
`Dkt. No. 129 at 4-7.
`
`While Amazon argues Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc. (“WARF”)
`
`supports denying AlmondNet’s motion, the court in WARF acknowledged that evidence and
`
`opinion existed in that case to support testimony at trial regarding defendant’s patents and their
`
`relevance to damages issues. No. 14-cv-062-WMC, 2015 WL 13547000, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Sep.
`
`28, 2015) (“WARF”). In particular, defendant’s technical expert “described how the accused
`
`products practice Apple’s patents,” and “Apple’s other experts relied on those opinions in
`
`apportioning damages between the alleged infringing features and other features.” Id.
`
`By contrast, Amazon does not allege that the Accused Products (or any Amazon product)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 10 of 15
`
`practices any specific patent (much less explain how any patents are practiced). Indeed, Amazon’s
`
`technical experts offer no opinions even allegedly relevant to whether Amazon practices any
`
`Amazon patent. Further, Amazon fails to allege how any of its own patents, or any patents that it
`
`licensed, are relevant to apportionment, and its damages expert likewise does not offer any
`
`opinions tying any Amazon patents to an apportionment analysis. Thus, unlike in WARF, there is
`
`no evidence in the instant case that would allow Amazon to connect any specific patents to any
`
`damages issue here. See also Dkt. No. 129 at 4-7. In fact, Amazon’s corporate representative’s
`
`testimony suggests the opposite. See Ex. 5 at 36:7-15 (failing to describe any comparability
`
`analysis); id. at 71:8-18 (failing to describe whether Amazon believed it practiced any patents and
`
`referring to privilege). Indeed, Amazon’s corporate representative acknowledged that many of the
`
`patents Amazon has licensed have nothing to do with the technology at issue here. Id. at 47:5-
`
`48:11
`
`
`
`). Amazon’s expert does
`
`not address these issues. Dkt. No. 129 at 4-7.
`
`Based on this, Amazon attempts to pivot, arguing that Amazon’s
`
`is somehow relevant to the hypothetical negotiation. Opp’n at 6 (emphasis added). Yet, a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` is exactly
`
`the kind of speculative testimony and evidence that principles of comparability, apportionment,
`
`Rule 702, and Rule 403 are meant to protect against. See Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co., 797 F.2d
`
`1564, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (affirming district court’s decision to preclude evidence of other
`
`patents and patent applications under Rule 403 as “prejudicial, confusing, and cumulative” because
`
`that “evidence would have injected frolics and detours and would have required introduction of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 11 of 15
`
`counter-evidence, all likely to create side issues that would have unduly distracted the jury from
`
`the main issues.); see also Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., No. 05-2433-JWL,
`
`2007 WL 2572417, at *4-6 (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2007) (granting motion in limine because license
`
`agreement involved unasserted patents, did “not provide a sufficient nexus to infer that the terms
`
`of the agreement are in any way relevant to the asserted architecture patents,” and, regardless,
`
`would be excluded based on Rule 403 because the “probative value, if any, is marginal and is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing or misleading the jury and potentially wasting
`
`time on a ‘mini trial’ concerning the implications of the” license). Indeed, this Court recognizes
`
`the same serious risk of prejudice, confusion, wasting of time, and undue delay. Mot. at 5-6 (citing
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00057-ADA, Dkt. No. 508 at 4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 19,
`
`2021) (granting motion in limine raised in id., Dkt. No. 368 at 7-9 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020)
`
`(arguing that “[b]ecause Intel does not rely on its patents in its damages calculation, any limited
`
`relevance Intel may assert its patents have under generalized damages principles is outweighed by
`
`the very serious risk of prejudice and confusion,” and “any discussion of Intel’s patents and the
`
`details of which products practice those patents and how would waste time and cause undue
`
`delay”))).
`
`These risks are particularly acute here where Amazon argues that Amazon-owned or
`
`Amazon-licensed patents are relevant only to “
`
`,” yet admit that its experts
`
`
`
`, and that the
`
`purported “belief” is based on pure speculation which is also contrary to its own corporate witness’
`
`statements. There can be no relevance to discussing patents Amazon might practice. Thus, this
`
`evidence certainly cannot outweigh the very clear prejudice, confusion, delay, and waste of time
`
`Amazon hopes to interject.
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: The Court should exclude documents,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 12 of 15
`
`testimony, and argument relating only to the financial success of DoubleClick.
`
`Amazon fails to articulate how DoubleClick’s financial success is relevant to this case.
`
`Amazon identifies only two possible areas of relevance: “DoubleClick’s invention story” and
`
`“rebuttal for any alleged objective indicia,” i.e., “AlmondNet’s alleged commercial success.”
`
`Opp’n at 6-7.
`
`As to the first of these issues, AlmondNet does not seek to exclude evidence of the alleged
`
`invention of the relevant features of the DoubleClick system on which Amazon relies, but rather
`
`evidence regarding DoubleClick’s commercial success. Of course, financial information isn’t
`
`necessary to tell any “invention story,” and Amazon makes no effort to explain why financial
`
`information is relevant to that story.
`
`Amazon’s second allegation of relevance, rebuttal to “alleged commercial success,” is
`
`completely unfounded because it is based on an entirely false premise. Specifically, Amazon
`
`argues that “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,” but this
`
`argument is nonsensical because AlmondNet does not intend to have Mr. Shkedi (or anyone)
`
`testify as to that at all. See Opp’n at 7. AlmondNet made this clear during discovery, as
`
`AlmondNet’s interrogatory responses do not indicate that it is relying on AlmondNet commercial
`
`success at all, but rather indicate that AlmondNet is relying on the commercial success of the
`
`Accused Products. Ex. O at 14-15, 127-128. Indeed, AlmondNet’s responses confirm that it does
`
`not contend that it makes or sells products or systems practicing the Asserted Patents. Id. at 8. In
`
`addition, AlmondNet’s validity expert Mr. Jason Frankovitz’s report confirms that he too will not
`
`offer such commercial success testimony about AlmondNet at trial, and that he too points to the
`
`commercial success of the Accused Products. Ex. P ¶¶396-398. And for the avoidance of any
`
`doubt, AlmondNet represents again for the record that it will not offer argument, evidence, or
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 13 of 15
`
`testimony at trial that AlmondNet is or was commercially successful due to its asserted patents.
`
`Thus, Amazon’s argument for relevance rests on a false premise.
`
`Even if Amazon’s false premise were correct, the financial success of DoubleClick would
`
`still be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to AlmondNet. Amazon’s cases only support the
`
`proposition that the technical features of the prior art are relevant towards the commercial success
`
`inquiry, not the financial success of the company that allegedly operated any prior art system.
`
`AlmondNet does not dispute that Amazon is free to explain the technical features of the alleged
`
`DoubleClick system on which it relies to the jury to rebut commercial success or nexus, consistent
`
`with the cases Amazon cites. However, the presentation of financial success evidence of the
`
`company that made and sold any such system lacks any relevance to commercial success.
`
`Indeed, the authorities are against Amazon. As a preliminary matter, Amazon does not
`
`explain why this Court’s MIL No. 3 does not guide the outcome here. See Dkt. No. 104 at 2. Nor
`
`does Amazon distinguish the Curtis Manufacturing v. Plasti-Clip Corp. case cited by AlmondNet,
`
`which found that evidence of “financial condition or wealth is irrelevant to [] patent infringement.”
`
`933 F. Supp. 94, 101 (D.N.H. 1995). Indeed, Amazon acknowledges that evidence of “current
`
`financial condition and wealth of a party is irrelevant.” Opp’n at 7-8. Given the lack of relevance,
`
`this Court should exclude this evidence.
`
`Additionally, Amazon fails to dispute that a jury may be improperly swayed by the
`
`financial success of DoubleClick, as they may misconstrue this evidence as evidence supporting
`
`Amazon’s invalidity arguments. Amazon fails to dispute that the jury may improperly judge
`
`AlmondNet by comparing AlmondNet’s financial status with DoubleClick’s, which is exactly the
`
`type of prejudice numerous appellate courts have sought to prevent. See U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Bill
`
`Harbert Int’l Const., Inc., 608 F.3d 871, 897 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Brough v. Imperial Sterling Ltd.,
`
`297 F.3d 1172, 1178 (11th Cir. 2002); Adams Lab’ys, Inc. v. Jacobs Eng’g Co., 761 F.2d 1218,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 14 of 15
`
`1226 (7th Cir. 1985); Garcia v. Sam Tanksley Trucking, Inc., 708 F.2d 519, 522 (10th Cir. 1983).
`
`And Amazon fails to dispute that jurors may believe the alleged DoubleClick prior art system on
`
`which Amazon relies must have “come first,” or been more inventive than the solutions described
`
`in the asserted claims, given DoubleClick’s financial success. Given the substantial prejudice and
`
`lack of relevance, exclusion is appropriate under Rules 401 and 403.
`
`Thus, this Court should reject Amazon’s flawed arguments and exclude evidence,
`
`testimony, and argument concerning the financial success of DoubleClick.
`
`
`
`Date: October 4, 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 223 Filed 10/11/23 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on October 4, 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
`
`