Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 230 Filed 04/25/24 Page 1 of 3
`Case Ca@gecl-2PGys0A088-ADAUDaTLAzZEtSBALHDéd C4leSR4/2bage Pages 1 of 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`IDENTITY SECURITY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLEINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.1:22-CV-00058-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORDER CONCERNINGFINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE MOTIONS
`
`Before the Court are Identity Security LLC’s (“Identity Security”) and Apple Inc.’s
`
`(“Apple”) motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions in Jimine. The Court
`
`held a Pretrial Conference concerning these motions on March 25, 2024. During that hearing, the
`
`Court heard oral arguments and provided oral rulings on the below motions. The Court now enters
`
`those rulings.
`
`Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert motions
`
`|sIdentitySecurity’sMotions|Ruling:
`
`Daubert Motion and Motion to Strike Expert Testimony|DENIED WITHOUT
`of Julie Knox (D.I. 165
`PREJUDICE.
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Unsupported|DENIED with respect to
`Affirmative Defenses (D.I. 166)
`inequitable conduct and unclean
`hands.
`
`DENIED AS MOOTwith respect
`to all other affirmative defenses.
`Daubert Motion and Motion to Strike Certain Opinions|DENIED WITHOUT
`and Testimony of Dr. Stephen Wicker (D.I. 168)
`PREJUDICE. However, with
`respect to use of or testimony
`relying on the Dallas
`Semiconductor Data Book, counsel
`for Apple shall approach the bench
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Ca@gecl-2PGys0A088-ADAUDaTLAzZEtSBALHDéd C4leSR4/2bage Pages 1 of 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`IDENTITY SECURITY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLEINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.1:22-CV-00058-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORDER CONCERNINGFINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE MOTIONS
`
`Before the Court are Identity Security LLC’s (“Identity Security”) and Apple Inc.’s
`
`(“Apple”) motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions in Jimine. The Court
`
`held a Pretrial Conference concerning these motions on March 25, 2024. During that hearing, the
`
`Court heard oral arguments and provided oral rulings on the below motions. The Court now enters
`
`those rulings.
`
`Motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert motions
`
`|sIdentitySecurity’sMotions|Ruling:
`
`Daubert Motion and Motion to Strike Expert Testimony|DENIED WITHOUT
`of Julie Knox (D.I. 165
`PREJUDICE.
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Unsupported|DENIED with respect to
`Affirmative Defenses (D.I. 166)
`inequitable conduct and unclean
`hands.
`
`DENIED AS MOOTwith respect
`to all other affirmative defenses.
`Daubert Motion and Motion to Strike Certain Opinions|DENIED WITHOUT
`and Testimony of Dr. Stephen Wicker (D.I. 168)
`PREJUDICE. However, with
`respect to use of or testimony
`relying on the Dallas
`Semiconductor Data Book, counsel
`for Apple shall approach the bench
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 230 Filed 04/25/24 Page 2 of 3
`Case Cagecl-2PGre9A088-AlAuDaLAzentSBalHbéd HlesR4/2bage Pagés 2 of 3
`
`
`before offering the document or
`testimony relying on that document
`at trial.
`
`D.I. 170
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ofNo Invalidity DENIED
`
`_Apple’sMotions,|Ring
`Motion to Exclude Expert Opinionsand Portions of the|GRANTEDwith respect to the
`Expert Report of Dr. Eric Cole (D.I. 167)
`current opinions of Dr. Cole
`regarding apportionment.
`Motion to Exclude Expert OpinionsandPortions of the|DENIED AS MOOT.
`Expert Report of Mr. Daniel Lindsay
`(D.I. 167
`Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions and Portions of the|DENIED WITHOUT
`Expert Report of Dr. Samuel Russ (D.I. 167
`PREJUDICE.
`Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement
`DENIED.
`D.I. 169
`
`
`
`
`
`Motionsin limine
`
`_AgreedMotionsinlimine|Ruling’
`
`Agreed MIL No.1: Neither party may enter any
`GRANTED AS AGREED.
`agreement not relied on as comparable by both parties’
`experts into evidence, and will not offer evidence,
`argument, or testimony regarding the royalty amount for
`any such agreement. Theparties will not be precluded
`from offering argumentor testimony aboutthe form of a
`reasonable royalty based on (1) Apple’s 30(b)(6)
`witness testimony, (2) the a Apple agreements
`producedin this case and notrelied on as comparable by
`
`sold.
`
`either party’s expert, or (3)—BIND Repos
`
`Agreed MIL No.2: Neither party will offer evidence,
`argument, or testimony regarding Apple’s total revenues
`or profits from the Accused Products so long as Apple
`does not challenge the average operating profit figures
`that Identity Security will presentat trial. The parties
`will not be precluded from offering argument, evidence,
`or testimony regarding the number of Accused Products
`
`GRANTED AS AGREED.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 230 Filed 04/25/24 Page 3 of 3
`Case Cagecl:22-@ve00088-ADAUDaCUAeNtDB3AL Aléd G4/25/24/2Page Bags 3 of 3
`
`_AgreedMotionsinlimine|Ruling’,
`
`Agreed MIL No. 3A: Neitherparty will offer evidence,|GRANTED AS AGREED.
`argument, or testimony regarding Apple’s total
`revenues, profits, billings, commissions, or valuations
`from otherareas of its business (such as the App Store
`and Apple Books) and products (such as MacBook
`computers) that are not accused of infringement.
`Identity Security will not be precluded from offering
`evidence, argument, or testimony aboutthe “halo effect"
`from Apple’s other Apple products and services or the
`existence and general scope of such revenues,profits,
`billings, commissions, or valuations, provided that any
`such testimony does not reference specific total dollar
`amounts.
`
`
`___IdentitySecurity’sMotionsinlimine(D1.183)__|Ruling
`
`
`
`
`Identity Security Opposed MIL No.1: Neitherparty
`DENIED,buttheparties shall
`
`may offer evidence, testimony, or argument for
`approach the benchprior to
`
`purposesof non-infringement comparing the accused
`offering any comparisonof the
`products to any asserted priorart.
`accused products to asserted prior
`art.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____Apple’sMotionsinlimine(D.1.188)|Ruling
`
`
`Apple Opposed MIL No. 3B: Neitherparty will offer
`To be consideredat final pretrial
`evidence, argument, or testimony regarding Mr. Tan’s
`conference scheduled for
`personal finances. Except to the extent such evidence,
`September16, 2024.
`argument, or testimony is barred by this Court’s
`standing MIL No. 3, see OGP 4.4, the parties will not be
`precluded from offering evidence, argument, or
`testimony regarding the financial resources of Identity
`Security.
`Apple Opposed MIL No. 4: Neither party may offer
`evidence, testimony, or argument regarding Mr. Tan’s
`famil
`
`DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`SO ORDERED,this 25th day of April.
`
`T
`ALAN D ALB
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
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
