• Judge Decides Motions in Limine in Nonpracticing Entity Case
  • March 11, 2015
  • Law Firm: Morris James LLP - Wilmington Office
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corporation, C.A. No. 10-1067-LPS, January 6, 2015.

    Stark, C.J. The parties’ motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part as indicated below.

    1. Defendant may not refer to plaintiff as a “patent troll” or reference “woodshedding.” It may however present evidence that plaintiff does not practice the patents-in-suit since that is relevant to damages.
    2. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude references to reexamination proceedings is granted, however defendant is not precluded from seeking to introduce portions of the proceedings for impeachment.
    3. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude evidence of defendant’s patents is granted.
    4. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant from disparaging or criticizing the PTO is granted, although defendant may argue the PTO is not perfect.
    5. Defendant’s motion to preclude reliance on defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents is granted since no claims of willful infringement, indirect infringement or copying are at issue.
    In addition, the court rules that §101 issues will be resolved post-trial. Any related testimony necessary will be presented after trial.

    Defendants from a related case are welcome to attend the pretrial conference.

    Plaintiff’s request that the court order defendant to further limit prior art references and obviousness combinations and limit the number of witnesses it will call at trial and defendant’s request to require plaintiff to limit the number of accused products are denied. The parties will make their own decisions how to use the 20-24 hours permitted per side.