Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 8, 2007

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT,
v.
GATEWAY, INC. AND GATEWAY COUNTRY STORES LLC, GATEWAY COMPANIES, INC., GATEWAY MANUFACTURING LLC AND COWABUNGA ENTERPRISES, INC., DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-CLAIMANTS,
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, INTERVENOR AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT,
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT,
v.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
DELL, INC., DEFENDANT.

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE FOR GROUP 2 TRIAL

On January 3, 2007, the Court heard motions in limine for the upcoming trial on Group 2 patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,341,457 ("the '457 patent") and RE 39,080 ("the '080 patent"), at issue between Lucent and Microsoft. Based on the arguments presented and the briefs submitted by the parties, the Court hereby rules on these motions as follows:

Motion No. Motion in limine Ruling

Lucent No. 1 Preclude testimony of James D. GRANTED-IN-[Docket No. 615] Johnston PART/DENIED-IN-PART;

Inventor may not testify as to any issues of invalidity.

Lucent No. 2 Preclude expert testimony of DENIED [Docket No. 616] John Rogitz on inequitable conduct, ownership, inventorship and USPTO procedures

Lucent No. 3 Preclude testimony on Lucent's DENIED [Docket No. 617] ePAC software as an embodiment

Lucent No. 4 Preclude testimony, evidence re GRANTED; Prior statements [Docket No. 618] Dolby case may be used for purposes of impeachment but no references may be made to the Dolby case, opinions, judgments thereon.

Lucent No. 5 Preclude testimony on Lucent's GRANTED [Docket No. 619] unrelated legal matters

Lucent No. 6 Preclude expert testimony of GRANTED [Docket No. 620] unsupported allegations of non-infringing alternatives

Lucent No. 7 Preclude Microsoft from GRANTED; Statements made in [Docket No. 621] presenting evidence about future reference to issues presented in trials other trials may be admissible for impeachment but no reference may be made to the future trials.

Lucent No. 8 Preclude Microsoft from GRANTED [Docket No. 622] presenting evidence and argument regarding settlement negotiations

Motion No. Motion in limine Ruling

Lucent No. 9 Preclude Microsoft from GRANTED [Docket No. 623] presenting evidence and argument regarding Lucent's market capitalization, licencing revenues or valuation

Lucent No. 10 Preclude Microsoft from GRANTED [Docket No. 624] presenting evidence not disclosed in discovery (foreign distribution of software)

Lucent No. 11 Preclude testimony of untimely DENIED; all witnesses disclosed [Docket No. 625] disclosed witnesses before close of discovery may testify; Dr. Quackenbush also may testify; Lucent may depose these witnesses as necessary before trial.

Lucent No. 12 Preclude evidence offered in DENIED [Docket No. 626] Napper's 10/23/06 supplemental expert report and 11/10/06 deposition

Lucent No. 13 Preclude testimony regarding DENIED [Docket No. 627] alleged "design-arounds"

Lucent No. 14 To bifurcate equitable defenses DENIED [Docket No. 628] into a separate bench trial and preclude jury from hearing evidence, argument or reference to the equitable issues

Lucent No. 15 Preclude elicitation of GRANTED [Docket No. 629] duplicative testimony from multiple experts at trial

Lucent No. 16 Preclude evidence or argument DENIED [Docket No. 630] on documents first produced on Dec. 10, 2006

Microsoft No. 1 Preclude mention of other legal DENIED; Prior statements may [Docket No. 637] proceedings regarding Microsoft be used but no references may be made to the other proceedings, opinions, judgments thereon.

Microsoft No. 2 Preclude reference to Microsoft's DENIED [Docket No. 639] unaccused products

Microsoft No. 3 Preclude Lucent from arguing DENIED [Docket No. 641] that its inventions drive sales of Windows or computer systems

Motion No. Motion in limine Ruling

Microsoft No. 4 Preclude presentation of a DENIED [Docket No. 643] damages model that depends on price of third party computers rather than Microsoft's software

Microsoft No. 5 Preclude Roger Smith from DENIED [Docket No. 645] testifying about IBM's licensing policy or "the industry's" purported adoption of such

Microsoft No. 6 Preclude testimony about IBM's DENIED [Docket No. 647] licensing policy or "the industry's" purported adoption of such

Microsoft No. 7 Preclude Lucent's damage GRANTED; Expert may base [Docket No. 649] experts from endorsing the work his or her opinion on calculations of others of another but may not vouch for those calculations.

Microsoft No. 8 Preclude testimony on Lucent's DENIED [Docket No. 651] damages theories

Microsoft No. 9 Preclude testimony on the GRANTED [Docket No. 653] number of accused '457 units

Microsoft No. 10 Exclude testimony on the number DENIED [Docket No. 655] of accused '080 units

Microsoft No. 11 Exclude Nov 6 2006 DENIED [Docket No. 657] supplemental report of expert

Jayant and all opinions and deposition testimony thereon

Microsoft No. 12 Preclude Lucent from discussing GRANTED-IN-[Docket No. 659] (1) the AHT of the HQ encoder; PART/DENIED-IN-PART;

(2) the "short blocks" for the fast Experts may testify only to encoder and HQ encoders and opinions contained in their expert the operation of the HQ encoder reports.

Microsoft No. 13 Preclude introduction of Lucent's GRANTED [Docket No. 661] tests concerning the HQ encoder

Microsoft No. 14 Exclude reference to patent GRANTED [Docket No. 663] application no. 11/248,622

Microsoft No. 15 Preclude Lucent from alleging an GRANTED [Docket No. 665] error was made in the '938 patent beyond what is stated in the file history

Motion No. Motion in limine Ruling

Microsoft No. 16 Preclude opinions or evidence on DENIED [Docket No. 667] unreliability of debugger on

Microsoft's secure computer

Microsoft No. 17 Preclude argument or suggestion GRANTED [Docket No. 669] that Microsoft's removal of HQ encoder in WMP11 is an admission of liability of infringement

Microsoft No. 18 Preclude Lucent from alleging GRANTED [Docket No. 671] that Johnston was hired by

Microsoft to defend this case

Microsoft No. 19 Preclude suggestion that DENIED [Docket No. 673] Microsoft's lack of an opinion of counsel indicates anything regarding willfulness

Microsoft No. 20 Preclude Lucent from DENIED [Docket No. 675] mentioning whether its experts have been retained by Fish & Richardson in other cases

Microsoft No. 21 Preclude Lucent from DENIED [Docket No. 677] mentioning the irrelevant

Intel/Broadcom litigation or any portion thereof

Microsoft No. 22 Preclude Lucent from GRANTED [Docket No. 679] mentioning the existence and contents of draft expert reports

Microsoft No. 23 Preclude Lucent from discussing DENIED except that experts [Docket No. 681] the value of cross-licenses may testify to desirability of cross-licenses; experts may not testify to any monetary figures.

Microsoft No. 24 Preclude Lucent from DENIED [Docket No. 683] introducing evidence or argument regarding Microsoft's foreign sales

IT IS SO ORDERED

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster United States Senior District Judge

Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States Magistrate Judge

20070108

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.