`
`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
`
`
`
`
` ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`Following the January 4, 2024 Pretrial Conference in this matter (ECF No. 237), the Court
`
`provides the following memorialization of rulings made on the parties’ motions in limine.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 243 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
`(ECF No. 174)
`
`AlmondNet’s MIL No. 1 to 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
`
`AlmondNet’s MIL No. 2 to preclude
`evidence, testimony, and argument alleging
`that Amazon’s Accused Products practices its
`own or others’ patents
`
`AlmondNet’s MIL No. 3 to exclude
`documents, testimony, and argument
`concerning the financial success of
`DoubleClick
`
`
`
`Ruling
`
`As set forth in the transcript of the January 4,
`2023 pretrial hearing, before asking a
`question concerning applicant statements
`made to the Patent Office during patent
`prosecution identified in the motion, the
`parties will approach the bench to discuss
`with the Court. The Court will take up the
`issue at that time, as necessary.
`
`Denied. As set forth in the transcript of the
`January 4, 2023 pretrial hearing, Defendants
`cannot offer testimony or argument that it
`does not infringe the asserted claims because
`it has or licenses others’ patents. This does
`not exclude discussion of Amazon’s patents
`or licenses to others’ patents for other
`purposes.
`
`Denied. As set forth in the transcript of the
`January 4, 2023 pretrial hearing, if the
`plaintiff thinks that a question is
`objectionable, it can object and the Court will
`rule on it at that time.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 243 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`Defendants’ Motions in Limine
`(ECF No. 171)
`
`Ruling
`
`Amazon’s MIL No. 2 to exclude references to
`parties dismissed from this action or other
`entities controlled by AlmondNet
`
`Amazon’s MIL No. 3 to exclude references to
`the assertion of attorney-client privilege
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 18th day of April, 2024
`
`As set forth in the transcript of the January 4,
`2023 pretrial hearing, before Plaintiff asks a
`question referring to IntentIQ, LLC, Datonics
`LLC, or other entities controlled by
`AlmondNet, the parties will approach the
`bench and Plaintiff will explain why the
`reference is relevant. The Court will take up
`the issue at that time, as necessary.
`
`As set forth in the transcript of the January 4,
`2023 pretrial hearing, if Defendants intend to
`call Daniel Jaye at trial, Defendants will have
`Mr. Jaye present and will inform the Court
`before he takes the stand. The Court will take
`up the issue at that time, as necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
