Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01714/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-01714-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PLANTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALIPH, INC., et al,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01714 WHA

NOTICE CONCERNING JANUARY 9

ORAL ARGUMENT REGARDING

MOTION IN LIMINE

REGARDING DR. LEONARD

On December 9, plaintiff moved to exclude portions of and testimony from Dr. Leonard

regarding the Freebit license and Freebit technology. The Court is tentatively of the view that 

Dr. Leonard should not be able to opine at trial regarding whether the Freebit technology is a

substantial non-infringing alternative, but at most, should be permitted to assume that it is a

substantial non-infringing alternative. In which case, defendants must have different proof for

whether the Freebit technology is a substantial non-infringing alternative. At the January 9

hearing, defendants’ counsel should please be prepared to demonstrate or address whether there

is such proof. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01714-WHA Document 320 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 1