throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 294 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00665-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF KOSS CORPORATION’S AND DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.’S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AND OTHER DISPUTES
`
`
`Title
`
`Ruling
`
`Filing Party Dkt.
`No.
`141
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`174
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`184
`
`GRANTED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED IN PART AND MOOT
`IN PART: The Motion is DENIED
`with respect to Mr. Wiggins’
`testimony regarding claim 61 of the
`ʼ934 Patent. The remainder of this
`Motion is MOOT.
`
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Motion to Exclude the
`Untimely Testimony of
`Edward Brann
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Motion to Dismiss Defendant
`Apple Inc.’s Counterclaim for
`Breach of Contract Pursuant to
`Rule 12(b)(6) and Motion to
`Strike Apple’s Affirmative
`Defense for Prosecution
`Laches Pursuant to Rule 12(f)
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Motion to Exclude the
`Testimony and Opinions of
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s
`Experts for Improper
`Application of the Court’s
`Claim Constructions
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 294 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`Title
`
`Ruling
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s
`Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment on Apple’s Breach-
`of-Contract Counterclaim and
`Affirmative Defense
`
`GRANTED: The Court rules that
`the arbitration award collaterally
`estops Koss from disputing that
`Koss breached the Confidentiality
`Agreement through certain
`allegations in its Complaint and
`orders specific performance of
`Koss’ obligations under Section 5
`of the parties’ contract. Apple is to
`send Koss a list of exhibits
`identified on Koss’ trial exhibit list
`that Apple contends are documents
`that Koss is barred from using or
`introducing at trial under Section 5.
`The parties are directed to agree to
`the universe of documents that
`Koss cannot discuss or admit into
`evidence under the Court’s order.
`For any documents where the
`parties do not agree, Koss is
`ordered to approach the bench,
`prior to a witness taking the stand,
`before discussing or attempting to
`introduce into evidence any of
`those listed documents or their
`contents, in either direct or cross-
`examination. The Court will take
`up disputes on any specific exhibit
`or testimony outside the jury’s
`presence.
`DENIED.
`
`DENIED.
`
`Filing Party Dkt.
`No.
`185
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`187
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`188
`
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Motion to Exclude Certain
`Testimony and Opinions of
`Daniel C. Wiggins
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Motion to Exclude or, in the
`Alternative, Strike Portions of
`the Testimony of Defendant
`Apple, Inc.’s Damages Expert,
`Thomas W. Britven,
`Regarding a Reasonable
`Royalty
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 294 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`Filing Party Dkt.
`No.
`189
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`190
`
`192
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s
`Omnibus Daubert Motion
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s
`Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Non-
`Infringement and Invalidity
`under § 112
`
`Koss
`Corporation
`
`194
`
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Motions for Summary
`Judgment
`
`
`
`3
`
`Title
`
`Ruling
`
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s
`Motion to Strike Expert
`Opinions of Dr. Christopher
`Jules White, Mr. Daniel C.
`Wiggins, Mr. Thomas J.
`Britven, and Dr. Itamar
`Simonson as Based on
`Untimely Discovery
`Disclosures
`
`DENIED IN PART AND MOOT
`IN PART: The portion of the
`Motion pertaining to headphone
`packaging is MOOT because Apple
`and Koss agree that Apple may
`introduce headphone packaging
`(but not the headphones
`themselves) at trial. The portion of
`the Motion pertaining to pictures of
`the Plantronics headphones and
`Motorola S9 headphones is also
`MOOT because Apple only intends
`to use them as demonstratives.
`Because the Court already ruled on
`the dispute regarding Mr. Brann in
`its ruling regarding Dkt. No. 141,
`the portion of the Motion seeking to
`strike Mr. Brann’s testimony is
`MOOT. The remainder of this
`Motion is DENIED.
`DENIED.
`
`GRANTED IN PART AND
`DENIED IN PART: The Motion is
`GRANTED as to non-infringement
`with respect to ʼ025 patent claims 3
`and 44, and ʼ934 patent claims 1, 3,
`4, 35, 37, 39, and 62. The
`remainder of this Motion is
`DENIED.
`Motion for Summary Judgment of
`No Inequitable Conduct: DENIED.
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment of
`No Breach of Contract: DENIED
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`Regarding Apple’s Pre-Suit Mental
`State: DENIED with the
`clarification that the marking issue
`is DENIED AS MOOT based on
`the Court’s granting Apple’s
`Motion for Summary Judgment of
`Non-Infringement as it relates to
`the ’025 Patent.
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00665-ADA Document 294 Filed 07/18/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`Title
`
`Filing Party Dkt.
`No.
`Dispute
`Chart
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Discovery Dispute Chart
`Regarding Claim Reduction to
`Trial Limits
`
`Ruling
`
`MOOT.
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 18th day of July, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket