Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 293 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA
`
`
`Case No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF KOSS CORPORATION’S AND DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`Ruling
`DENIED: But the Court will not
`allow the parties to introduce
`evidence about the size, sales,
`revenue, net worth, or value of either
`party in order to prejudice the jury.
`
`Filing Party No. Description
`Koss
`1
`Preclude Apple From Raising
`Corporation
`Any Argument, Evidence,
`Testimony, Insinuation,
`Reference, Or Assertion
`Regarding Plaintiff’s Overall
`Size, Sales, Revenue, Net
`Worth, Or Value
`Preclude Apple From Raising
`Any Argument, Evidence,
`Testimony, Insinuation,
`Reference, Or Assertion
`Regarding Apple’s Patents On
`Any Of Its Products
`Preclude Apple From Raising
`Any Argument, Evidence,
`Testimony, Insinuation,
`Reference, Or Assertion
`Regarding Allegations That
`Individual Claim Elements
`Were In The Prior Art
`Preclude Apple From
`Presenting Any Evidence Or
`Analysis Comparing The
`Preferred Embodiments To The
`Accused Products
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`2
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`3
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`4
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 293 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`6
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`7
`
`Filing Party No. Description
`Koss
`5
`Preclude Apple From Raising
`Corporation
`Any Argument, Evidence,
`Testimony, Insinuation,
`Reference, Or Assertion That
`The Patents-In-Suit Must
`Encompass New Features Of
`The Accused Products
`Preclude Apple From Raising
`Any Argument, Evidence,
`Testimony, Or Reference To
`Personal Stock Transactions Of
`Any Current Or Former
`Employee Of Koss
`Preclude Apple From Raising
`Any Argument, Evidence,
`Testimony, Insinuation,
`Reference, Or Assertion
`Making Reference To Any
`Prior Art And Any Theory Of
`Invalidity Not Set Forth In
`Apple’s Final Invalidity
`Contentions As Narrowed
`Preclude Apple From Raising
`Any Argument, Evidence,
`Testimony, Or Assertion That
`Compares The Accused
`Products To Prior Art, Or
`Allegation That Defendant
`Does Not Infringe Because It
`Practices The Prior Art
`Preclude The Parties From
`Relying Upon Or Introducing
`Any Documents Produced After
`The Close Of Fact Discovery
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`8
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`9
`
`Ruling
`DENIED.
`
`GRANTED.1
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED: But the Court notes that
`evidence disclosed after fact
`discovery is generally not admissible.
`
`
`1 The Court notes that, when it grants a motion in limine, it is generally not ruling that the evidence
`will be excluded throughout trial. Rather, by granting a motion in limine, the Court is requiring
`counsel to raise the issue at the bench prior to raising it to the jury.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 293 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`Ruling
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`14
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`15
`
`Filing Party No. Description
`Koss
`10
`Preclude Any Argument Or
`Corporation
`Testimony Concerning The
`Personal Net Worth Of Any
`Witness Or Of Any Owner
`(Direct Or Indirect),
`Shareholder, Director, Officer,
`And/Or Employee Of Either
`Party
`Preclude Any Apple Fact
`Witness From Offering Expert
`Testimony, Opinions, Or Legal
`Conclusions
`Preclude Any Argument,
`Questioning, Or Reference To
`Paul Clark’s Prior Litigation
`With DocuSign
`Preclude Apple From Arguing
`Or Insinuating That The
`Willingness To Pay For The
`Accused Feature When Added
`Up With Other Features Cannot
`Exceed The Price Of The
`Product
`Preclude Any Testimony
`Referring To The Value Of The
`Technology In The Allegedly
`Comparable Licenses To The
`Value Of The Patents In Suit
`Preclude Any Testimony Or
`Evidence About Prior Art From
`Apple Witnesses Outside The
`Scope Of Their Disclosed
`Knowledge
`Preclude Any Argument Or
`Testimony Regarding
`Undisclosed Non-Infringing
`Alternatives
`Preclude Any Argument,
`Evidence, Testimony, Or
`Reference To The Claim That
`Apple Has Never Relied On A
`Conjoint Survey Outside
`Context Of Litigation As
`Informing The Hypothetical
`Negotiation
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 293 Filed 07/18/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`2
`
`Filing Party No. Description
`Apple Inc.
`1
`Preclude Koss From
`Referencing, Or Introducing
`Evidence Or Testimony
`Regarding The Prices Apple
`Paid To Acquire Beats Or SRI
`International
`Preclude Koss From Offering
`Testimony, Evidence, Or
`Argument Regarding Supposed
`Misconduct In Apple’s Contacts
`With Inventor Michael Pelland
`Preclude Koss From Offering
`Testimony, Evidence, Or
`Argument That Apple Is
`Violating The Privacy Of
`Consumers Or Listening To Siri
`Sessions
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`3
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`4
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`5
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`6
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Preclude Koss From
`Referencing, Or Introducing
`Evidence Or Testimony
`Regarding, Any Pretrial Motion
`Related To This Case Or To
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., No.
`4:20-cv-05504-JST (N.D. Cal.)
`Preclude Testimony, Evidence,
`Or Argument Relating To The
`Qualifications Of The Patent
`Examiner Or Suggesting That
`She Is An Expert In Any
`Specific Field
`
`Preclude Reliance On, Or
`Suggestion That The Jury Infer
`The Content Of, Any Privileged
`Communication Between Apple
`And Its Counsel
`Preclude Experts From Relying
`On Nonspecific Citations To
`Entire Deposition Transcripts
`Of Apple Witnesses
`
`4
`
`Ruling
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED: The Court notes that
`procedural issues that transpired prior
`to the beginning of trial are not
`relevant and are not admissible.
`
`AGREED IN PART AND DENIED
`IN PART: Koss agrees that it will
`not offer evidence or argument that
`Apple is violating the privacy of
`consumers or listening to Siri
`sessions, but the Court rules that
`Koss may introduce evidence that
`Apple’s servers store what
`individuals have said to Siri.
`GRANTED.
`
`GRANTED IN PART AND
`DENIED IN PART: The Court rules
`that the parties may provide evidence
`and argument that the patent
`examiner is someone with experience
`in the field of the technology, but the
`Court also rules that the parties may
`not refer to the patent examiner as an
`expert.
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 293 Filed 07/18/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`Filing Party No. Description
`Apple Inc.
`8
`Preclude Testimony, Evidence,
`Or Argument That Koss Saved
`Or Created American Jobs, Or
`That A Verdict For Apple
`Would Impact Koss’ Workforce
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`9
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`10
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`11
`
`Preclude Testimony, Evidence,
`Or Argument Regarding Koss’
`Development Of Voice
`Assistant Technology After The
`Filing Of The Patents-In-Suit
`(April 2008)
`Preclude Testimony, Evidence,
`Or Argument Suggesting That
`Any Claim Of The Patents-In-
`Suit Was Conceived Or
`Reduced To Practice Before
`April 2008
`
`Preclude Testimony, Evidence,
`Or Argument Regarding The
`Parties’ Presuit
`Communications
`
`SIGNED this 18th day of July, 2022.
`
`Ruling
`GRANTED IN PART AND
`DENIED IN PART: The Court rules
`that either party may provide
`argument and evidence that they
`create American jobs, but the Court
`will not allow the parties to refer to
`the impact a verdict will have on the
`parties.
`DENIED.
`
`AGREED: Koss agrees that the
`Patents-in-Suit were conceived and
`reduced to practice in April 2008, but
`Koss will not be prohibited from
`providing information from before
`April 2008 regarding what led to the
`conception of the Patents-in-Suit in
`April 2008.
`MOOT.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`