Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 282 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`IDENTITY SECURITY LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL NO. A-22-CV-00058-ADA
`
`ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`The Court issues this Order sua sponte. To allow for reasonable and relevant limine
`
`practice as part of the Pretrial Conference, the Court imposes the following set of standard
`
`limine rulings to be applied mutually to both parties. In addition to these limine orders, the
`
`Court has issued an Order memorializing its rulings on the Parties’ motions in limine from the
`
`pretrial conference. ECF No. 281.
`
`It is therefore ORDERED that the Parties, their witnesses, and counsel shall not raise,
`
`discuss, or argue the following before the venire panel or the jury without prior leave of the
`
`Court:
`
`Court MIL No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument regarding pretrial proceedings or issues
`including but not limited to discovery disputes or dispositive
`motion practice.
`
`Court MIL No. 2: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument that raises religious or political beliefs,
`race, ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or
`health (including but not limited to vaccination status) of a party,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 282 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`witness, attorney, or law firm.
`
`Court MIL No. 3: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument concerning any party’s overall financial
`size, wealth, or executive compensation.
`
`Court MIL No. 4: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument regarding prior art that is not disclosed
`in a specific combination set forth in any party’s expert report or
`invalidity contentions.
`
`Court MIL No. 5: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument before the jury that relates only to
`equitable defenses or counterclaims (i.e., evidence that does not
`also serve another evidentiary purpose relevant to jury issues).
`
`Court MIL No. 6: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, inter partes review, the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act,
`or any alternative structure that does not relate directly to an
`Article III trial in a district court.
`
` Court MIL No. 7: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument suggesting that there is anything legally
`improper in filing a patent application or writing patent claims to
`cover an adverse party’s product.
`
`Court MIL No. 8: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any argument,
`evidence,
`testimony,
`insinuation, reference, or assertion
`regarding a witness’ choice to testify in his or her native or chosen
`language (being any language other than English).
`
`Court MIL No. 9: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument referring to any other person or entity
`as “greedy,” “corrupt,” “evil,” or “dishonest,” or using any other
`pejorative term. The parties shall also be precluded from
`introducing evidence, testimony, or argument that characterizes
`any other person or entity’s actions as “stealing,” “copying,”
`“misappropriating,” “pirating,” “trespassing,” or any similar
`terms.
`
`Court MIL No. 10: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument bolstering or disparaging the U.S. Patent
`Office, its examiners, or the process for prosecuting patent
`applications or granting patents in the United States. This does
`not preclude factual evidence as to the operations of the USPTO.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 282 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`Court MIL No. 11: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument referring to any other person or entity in
`disparaging ways, such as a “patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty
`hunter,” “bandit,” “playing
`the
`lawsuit
`lottery,” “shell
`company,” “shakedown artist,” “patent assertion entity,” or any
`such similar terms. Use of the term “non-practicing entity” is
`permitted.
`
`Court MIL No. 12: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument regarding funding of the litigation or
`regarding any comment on attorney-fee compensation including
`amounts or structure.
`
`Court MIL No. 13: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument regarding either party’s other litigations
`or arbitrations, including parallel proceedings in any other court,
`tribunal, or forum, including ADR proceedings.
`
`Court MIL No. 14: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument regarding the size of the parties’ law firms
`or the number of attorneys representing the parties.
`
`Court MIL No. 15: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument regarding the fact that testimony or
`opinions offered by any expert may have been criticized,
`excluded, or found to be unreliable in any other forum.
`
`Court MIL No. 16: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument referring to the role or presence in the
`courtroom of jury consultants or shadow jurors, or the use of
`focus groups or mock proceedings to assist with trial preparation,
`jury selection, or trial.
`
`Court MIL No. 17: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument relating
`to
`the Court’s Claim
`Construction Order other than the Court’s actual adopted
`constructions, including the Court’s reasoning or the parties’
`agreements.
`
`Court MIL No. 18: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument for purposes of non-infringement
`comparing the accused product or method to the preferred
`embodiments, the specification, or any non-accused product or
`method.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 282 Filed 09/24/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`Court MIL No. 19: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument suggesting that a verdict in one party’s
`favor would impact the cost of goods or services or would have
`other commercial impacts.
`
`Court MIL No. 20: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument suggesting that the Western District of
`Texas is an improper or inconvenient venue in which to try this
`case.
`
`Court MIL No. 21: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence,
`testimony, or argument suggesting that the other party had an
`affirmative duty to seek opinion of counsel, and/or any inference
`that may be drawn as to what the contents of such an opinion
`would have been.
`
`Court MIL No. 22: Neither party will ask questions or make statements to invoke a
`privileged or protected answer, including any materials that are
`privileged, or that have been presented outside of the jury to
`establish/prevent a finding of privilege.
`
`Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness may testify to expert opinions outside the
`established parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel shall
`not raise such an objection for strategic or other non-meritorious
`purposes.
`
`Court MIL No. 24: The parties shall be precluded from arguing that an expert has
`committed plagiarism or improper copying solely because their
`report incorporates portions of another expert's report. A party
`wishing to make such an argument must approach the bench
`before initiating that line of questioning and demonstrate to the
`Court's satisfaction that the expert failed to cite or attribute
`language deriving from another expert.”.
`
`SO ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2024.
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`4
`
`