Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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 

[JOINT PROPOSED] ORDER RE MIL RULINGS AT FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

Case No. C07 02845 WHA 

pa-1281564 

BRYAN WILSON (CA SBN 138842) 

ERIC C. PAI (CA SBN 247604) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

755 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, California 94304-1018 

Telephone: 650.813.5600 

Facsimile: 650.494.0792 

E-Mail: BWilson@mofo.com 

 EPai@mofo.com 

DAVID C. DOYLE (CA SBN 70690) 

STEVEN E. COMER (CA SBN 154384) 

BRIAN M. KRAMER (CA SBN 212107) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 

San Diego, California 92130-2040 

Telephone: 858.720.5100 

Facsimile: 858.720.5125 

E-Mail: DDoyle@mofo.com 

SComer@mofo.com 

BMKramer@mofo.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

APPLERA CORPORATION – APPLIED 

BIOSYSTEMS GROUP 

KEVIN M. FLOWERS (pro hac vice)

THOMAS I. ROSS (pro hac vice)

JEFFREY H. DEAN (pro hac vice)

JOHN R. LABBÉ (pro hac vice)

CULLEN N. PENDELTON (pro hac vice)

MARK H. IZRAELEWICZ (pro hac vice)

MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 

6300 Sears Tower 

233 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606-6357 

Telephone: 312.474.6300 

Facsimile: 312.474.0448 

Email: kflowers@marshallip.com 

tross@marshallip.com 

jdean@marshallip.com 

jlabbe@marshallip.com 

cpendleton@marshallip.com 

mizraelewicz@marshallip.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ILLUMINA, INC., SOLEXA, INC., AND 

STEPHEN C. MACEVICZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

APPLERA CORPORATION – APPLIED 

BIOSYSTEMS GROUP, a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ILLUMINA, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

SOLEXA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and 

STEPHEN C. MACEVICZ, an individual, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C07 02845 WHA 

[JOINT PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE AT FINAL PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE 

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 302 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 4
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 

[JOINT PROPOSED] ORDER RE MIL RULINGS AT FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

Case No. C07 02845 WHA 1

pa-1281564 

This order summarizes the Court’s rulings on the parties’ motions in limine at the Final 

Pretrial Conference held on September 8, 2008 as follows: 

AB MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 (ONE-BASE DAMAGES) 

GRANTED. Defendants will not be permitted to seek damages for any alleged 

infringement of the ’341 or ’597 patents by the one-base encoding system or process. 

AB MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 (WILLFULNESS) 

WITHDRAWN. AB withdrew this motion at the pretrial conference after Defendants 

stipulated that their allegation of willful infringement is directed only at the conduct of Agencourt 

Personal Genomics (“APG”) before it was acquired by AB, not at AB’s conduct. 

AB MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 (TWO HYPOTHETICAL NEGOTIATIONS) 

The Court reserves judgment on this motion. Dr. Siuta may submit a supplemental report 

of 5 pages or less by FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008, solely on infringement damages for the ’119 

patent against APG. AB may take a 2-hour deposition of Dr. Siuta, and AB may submit a rebuttal 

report of 5 pages or less. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 (DISGORGEMENT DAMAGES) 

DENIED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART. AB may not recover damages or restitution from 

Macevicz. AB will not be permitted to seek attorneys’ fees as part of a damages award by the 

jury. All other damages theories with respect to stock options or punitive damages remain for 

trial. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 (MACEVICZ AS FIDUCIARY OF AB) 

DENIED. AB will be permitted to refer to Macevicz as a fiduciary of AB. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 (NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES) 

GRANTED IN PART. Kevin McKernan’s testimony regarding non-infringing alternatives 

will be limited to the two-base encoding system. Dr. Cox may rely only on the two-base 

encoding system as an alternative that does not infringe the ’341 and ’597 patents. 

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 302 Filed 09/23/08 Page 2 of 4
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 

[JOINT PROPOSED] ORDER RE MIL RULINGS AT FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

Case No. C07 02845 WHA 2

pa-1281564 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 (CARR PATENT) 

GRANTED IN PART. The Carr patent may not be shown to the jury. The Court reserves 

judgment on whether it will consider the Carr patent as a legal limitation on the doctrine of 

equivalents for the ’119 patent. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 (MAG + BRENNAN ) 

The Court reserves judgment on this motion. Each side may file a supplemental brief of 5 

pages or less by NOON ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 on whether nondisclosure in AB’s 

invalidity contentions of the combination of the Mag and Brennan references as rendering 

obvious claim 1 of the ’119 patent was harmless, pursuant to FRCP 37(c). 

Dated: September 19, 2008 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Bryan Wilson 

Bryan Wilson 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

APPLERA CORPORATION – 

APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS GROUP 

Dated: September 19, 2008 MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 

By: /s/ John R. Labbé 

John R. Labbé 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ILLUMINA, INC., SOLEXA, INC., 

AND STEPHEN C. MACEVICZ 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 WILLIAM H. ALSUP 

 United States District Judge 

September 23, 2008.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 302 Filed 09/23/08 Page 3 of 4
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 

[JOINT PROPOSED] ORDER RE MIL RULINGS AT FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

Case No. C07 02845 WHA 3

pa-1281564 

I, Bryan Wilson, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

[JOINT PROPOSED] ORDER RE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT FINAL 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that 

John R. Labbé has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: September 19, 2008 /s/ Bryan Wilson 

 Bryan Wilson 

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 302 Filed 09/23/08 Page 4 of 4