`
`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
`
`