Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483-23/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POSTX CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SECURE DATA MOTION, INC. d/b/a/

SIGABA,

Defendant. /

No. C 02-04483 SI

ORDER DENYING POSTX’S MOTIONS

IN LIMINE NOS. 2-5 AND GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

SIGABA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

On November 4, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on various motions in limine. Having

carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the parties’ papers, the Court enters the following

order.

BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2002, PostX Corporation (“PostX”) filed a complaint for patent infringement

against Secure Data In Motion, d/b/a Sigaba (“Sigaba”) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.

6,014,688 (“the ‘688 patent”). In February 2003, after the U.S. Patent Office issued United States Patent

No. 6,477,647 (“the ‘647 Patent”) to PostX, PostX filed a second suit against Sigaba. On September

29, 2003 and November 25, 2003, the Court granted Sigaba’s motions for summary judgment of

non-infringement of both patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion on November 15, 2004.

On February 4, 2004, the Court granted summary judgment for defendants on PostX’s claim for

misappropriation of trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) because of PostX’s

failure to adequately disclose the trade secrets at issue in that claim. 

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 12
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

2

On June 28, 2004, this Court granted PostX leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”),

amending a claim for breach of confidentiality agreement by former PostX and current Sigaba employee

James Reid (“Reid”), and adding a claim for common law unfair competition. See June 28, 2004 Order

at 1-2. Sigaba and Reid filed counterclaims against PostX for violations of the Sherman Act, false

advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition. On August 22, 2004, PostX and Reid

entered into a stipulation dismissing the claims and counterclaims between them. On November 22,

2004, the Court denied a motion by Sigaba to dismiss PostX’s unfair competition claim. 

In summary judgment orders filed in August 2005 the Court (1) granted PostX’s motion for

summary adjudication of Sigaba’s “antitrust conspiracy” counterclaims; (2) denied Sigaba’s motion for

summary adjudication of PostX’s unfair competition claim; (3) granted PostX’s motion for summary

adjudication based on Noerr-Pennington immunity as to Sigaba’s antitrust counterclaims; (4) denied

PostX’s motion for summary adjudication of Sigaba’s Lanham Act counterclaim, with certain

limitations on that counterclaim; and (5) denied PostX’s motion for summary adjudication of Sigaba’s

Lanham Act and unfair competition counterclaims. Thus, the remaining claims in the case are: (1)

PostX’s claim for common law unfair competition; (2) Sigaba’s counterclaim under Section 43(a) of

the Lanham Act; and (3) Sigaba’s counterclaim for common law unfair competition.

DISCUSSION

As a general matter, the parties dispute the scope of this Court’s August 17 and August 31, 2005

summary judgment orders regarding Sigaba’s Lanham Act counterclaim, and much of the parties’

briefing on PostX’s motions in limine is devoted to the parties’ differing interpretations. PostX contends

that Sigaba’s evidence in support of its Lanham Act counterclaim is limited (1) to statements and

conduct that would be independently actionable under the Lanham Act, and (2) to statements and

conduct that occurred after the Federal Circuit’s ruling in November 2004. 

Sigaba contends that even if particular conduct or statements are not independently actionable

under the Lanham Act, they may nevertheless be introduced into evidence because they are relevant to

both of Sigaba’s counterclaims. In addition, Sigaba contends that the Court only immunized the filing

of the patent infringement suits and certain statements made in connection with the filing and

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 12
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

3

prosecution of the patent suits, and that other remarks and conduct, even if made prior to November

2004, are still actionable under the Lanham Act.

Sigaba’s interpretation is largely correct. In the August 2005 orders, the Court held that because

PostX’s patent infringement claims were not baseless, Noerr-Pennington immunity attached to the

filing of PostX’s patent litigation. The Court clarifies that with respect to Sigaba’s Lanham Act

counterclaim, this holding only immunizes PostX statements regarding the filing of or existence of the

patent infringement actions. The Court’s orders do not broadly immunize any and all PostX statements

that were related to the patent case (including those made prior to November 2004), if such statements

otherwise meet the elements necessary for a claim under the Lanham Act or for unfair competition. 

Moreover, even if the evidence is not independently actionable, it is still relevant to Sigaba’s

counterclaims. Sigaba claims that PostX used illicitly-obtained sensitive competitive information to try

to “kill” or “cripple” Sigaba, and that PostX widely disseminated confidential information it had

obtained to prospective and actual customers and partners. Sigaba contends that PostX also used this

information to develop a “counteroffensive” plan that led to the decision to file the patent lawsuits and

to widely disseminate infringement accusations against Sigaba, which were designed to create concerns

about Sigaba’s financial viability and to create concerns about potential exposure to patent infringement

claims. 

The Court finds that even though PostX’s filing of the patent infringement suits is not

independently actionable, it is relevant background information about which the jury may be told. The

parties should prepare clear jury instructions to guide the jury in their determinations and help the jury

sift between evidence that is relevant because it provides a context for the case, versus evidence that is

actionable because it goes to the elements of the parties’ claims.

1. PostX’s Motion in Limine No. 2 

PostX seeks to exclude all evidence regarding (1) PostX’s decision to file the patent claims; and

(2) communications with prospective customers prior to the Federal Circuit’s ruling in November 2004.

For the reasons set forth supra, the Court will not exclude such evidence. 

Post X also seeks to exclude all evidence regarding “antitrust and market issues.” PostX

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 12
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

4

contends that Sigaba seeks to introduce “voluminous documents and evidence relating to competition

between PostX and Sigaba (and other competitors), general market-related documents, and

communications with Mayfield.” Motion at 4. PostX contends that this evidence is irrelevant based

on the Court’s August 17, 2005 order granting summary judgment on Sigaba’s antitrust claims (and

dismissal of the Mayfield defendants), and that such evidence will needlessly prolong and complicate

the trial. PostX does not identify any specific evidence falling in this category, but instead refers

generally to Sigaba’s list of trial exhibits, which numbers in the hundreds.

Sigaba agrees that “evidence relating solely to market definition, dangerous probability of

success and antitrust injury are no longer relevant.” Opposition at 9. Sigaba contends, however, that

some evidence that is relevant to both its dismissed antitrust claims and remaining counterclaims, such

as evidence demonstrating that Sigaba was PostX’s “only competitor,” should not be excluded. Sigaba

argues that “the head-to-head competition between PostX and Sigaba was the motivation that led PostX

to engaging in nefarious acts, including developing its ‘counteroffensive’ strategy against Sigaba,

engaging in unfair competition, and making objectively baseless false statements to the marketplace.”

Id.

The Court concludes that some evidence regarding the nature of the market in which Sigaba and

PostX were competing, and Sigaba’s and PostX’s positions within that market, is relevant to both

parties’ unfair competition claims and to Sigaba’s Lanham Act counterclaim. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES PostX’s motion in limine. However, the Court agrees with PostX that there is no need for

voluminous documents and evidence on these issues, and the Court will accordingly limit the

introduction of such evidence as appropriate at trial. 

2. PostX’s Motion In Limine No. 3 

 PostX’s motion in limine is based on its belief that Sigaba’s counterclaim is limited to the fact

that PostX’s September 2002 press release announcing the filing of the patent infringement case

remained on PostX’s website after November 2004. As discussed supra, the Court holds that Sigaba’s

Lanham Act counterclaim is not so limited. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by PostX’s argument

that because the September 2002 press release (which as Sigaba notes was repeatedly amended to, inter

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 4 of 12
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

5

alia, change the contact people) always contained its original release date, Lanham Act liability cannot

attach based on the fact that PostX kept the press release on its website into 2005. Accordingly, the

Court DENIES PostX’s motion. 

3. PostX’s Motion In Limine No. 4 

To the extent PostX’s motion contends that Sigaba is precluded from introducing any evidence

of PostX statements made prior to November 2004, that argument has been rejected supra. PostX also

moves to exclude certain evidence on the ground that Sigaba did not specifically identify the statements

at issue in its counterclaims or responses to contention interrogatories. The Court disagrees, finding that

Sigaba’s interrogatory response, which stated that “PostX touted its litigation against Sigaba, referenced

Sigaba’s alleged infringement of the ‘688 and/or ‘647 patents and suggested that it would sue potential

customers if they did business with Sigaba,” sufficiently describes the nature of Sigaba’s Lanham Act

claims.

PostX also contends that specific statements identified by Sigaba are not actionable under the

Lanham Act because they were made internally within PostX, do not specifically mention any Sigaba

“product,” and/or do not constitute “false advertising.” These statements include (1) two PostX

statements that Sigaba had the burden to prove it was not infringing on PostX’s patents; (2) two PostX

statements suggesting that Sigaba could not design around PostX’s patents; and (3) one statement that

Sigaba was “in clear violation of” of PostX’s patent. The Court concludes that, for the reasons set forth

supra, regardless of whether the statements themselves are actionable, they are relevant to Sigaba’s

counterclaims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion in limine.

4. PostX’s Motion In Limine No. 5 

PostX moves to exclude (1) “litigation damages” consisting of time and money that Sigaba spent

on depositions and other matters in the patent litigation; (2) damages flowing from PostX’s discussions

with customers related to the patent litigation; and (3) “generalized statements” regarding “lost customer

opportunities” and “competitive injury.” PostX generally asserts that “Sigaba cannot claim damages

for injuries allegedly stemming from the fact that PostX brought suit or publicized the patent claims

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 5 of 12
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

1

 PostX has also filed a Daubert motion to strike Sigaba’s damages expert, Dr. Warren-Boulton.

This motion is not one of the motions in limine currently before the Court.

2

 It is not clear from the parties’ papers what the “litigation costs” are; if Sigaba is seeking

“litigation damages” consisting of attorneys’ fees and costs associating with defending the patent

lawsuits, this would be improper. 

6

prior to the Federal Circuit ruling.” Motion at 1. For the reasons discussed supra, this general statement

is overbroad; Sigaba can in fact seek to recover damages for injuries caused by a Lanham Act or unfair

competition violation, even if those violations occurred prior to November 2004. 

PostX raises a number of objections to the damages assessment contained in the report of

Sigaba’s damages expert, Dr. Warren-Boulton.1

 PostX argues that Dr. Warren-Boulton’s opinions are

flawed because they are predicated on the theory that PostX’s prosecution of the patent infringement

claims was an antitrust violation, and have not separated out which damages flowed from antitrust

violations, and which damages flowed from Lanham Act and unfair competition violations. Sigaba

contends that because many of the same statements and acts which formed the basis of Sigaba’s nowdismissed antitrust claims are also involved in the remaining Lanham Act and unfair competition claims,

Dr. Warren-Boulton’s expert report remains valid. The Court agrees with Sigaba that this issue does

not render Dr. Warren-Boulton’s opinions inadmissible, although it does make them vulnerable to

substantial challenge on cross-examination. 

PostX also contends that Sigaba does not have any damages because it did not lose any

customers as a result of PostX’s conduct. Sigaba responds that Dr. Warren-Boulton has identified

several types of damages suffered by Sigaba, including lost customers and future profits, increased costs

to Sigaba of doing business, diversion of resources required for Sigaba to defend itself and to respond

to customer concerns, diminution in Sigaba’s market worth, and litigation costs.2

 Although Dr. WarrenBoulton is the subject of a Daubert motion, that motion has not yet been argued and is not presently

before the Court. Thus, to the extent that PostX challenges Dr. Warren-Boulton’s damages assessments,

that challenge is premature and should be dealt with in connection with the Daubert motion. Based

upon the record before the Court at this time, however, the Court concludes that Sigaba has introduced

sufficient evidence of damages to proceed to the jury. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 6 of 12
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

7

5. Sigaba’s Motion In Limine No. 4 

Sigaba’s motion in limine largely reprises its unsuccessful motion for summary adjudication of

PostX’s unfair competition claim. For its unfair competition claim, PostX alleges that former Post-X

employee James Reid leaked confidential PostX information to Sigaba in May-June 2002. Mr. Reid

allegedly met with Sigaba employees in May 2002. Reid also sent Sigaba employee Stanley Chin an

email on June 11, 2002, containing “a list of customers and potential customers with whom he had

interacted while employed by PostX,” and Mr. Chin passed this email along to Sigaba’s President and

Chief Operating Officer John Ferraro and Vice President Rodger Kobayashi. Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36,

38. PostX alleges that information about customers and potential customers, as well as confidential

information about business and personnel strategy, was proprietary to PostX, and that without it, Sigaba

would not have known that some of these entities were using or seeking secure messaging products, who

at these entities was responsible for making decisions about such products, and what their purchasing

needs and methods were. Id. at ¶¶ 39-40.

Sigaba contends that (1) PostX’s evidence in support of its unfair competition claim should be

limited to the entities PostX identified in its contention interrogatories (Fidelity, Schwab, DST and First

Union); (2) PostX’s damages claim with respect to Fidelity is entirely speculative and should be

excluded; (3) PostX “abandoned” its claim at summary judgment that Sigaba suddenly began appearing

at accounts after it met with Mr. Reid on May 5, 2005, and thus PostX cannot now claim that Sigaba

learned of new accounts from Mr. Reid; (4) PostX cannot recover damages for time spent responding

to Sigaba’s purported misrepresentations of PostX’s own technology; and (5) the expert opinion on

damages by PostX’s expert, Mr. Wagner, should be excluded because it is based on speculation that

PostX lost the Fidelity account due to Sigaba’s actions, and because PostX cannot recover for time spent

responding to Sigaba pointing out technical deficiencies in PostX’s own products.

A. Entities Not Disclosed in Response to Sigaba’s Contention Interrogatories

Sigaba propounded interrogatories requesting that PostX “[s]tate all facts supporting [PostX’s]

allegation . . . that Sigaba engaged in common law unfair competition, including but not limited to

[PostX’s] allegations that the entities listed in the JUNE 11, 2002 EMAIL were existing or potential

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 7 of 12
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

3

 Sigaba notes that Posts’s trial exhibit list includes documents relating to Wellmark, AFLAC,

and Bank of America.

8

customers of PostX” and that “Sigaba would not have known key information regarding the actual or

potential PostX customers.” Comb. Cooper Decl. Ex. G at 2:22-26. The portion of PostX’s response

identifying specific entities is as follows:

[A]s a result of the information provided to it by Reid, Sigaba learned what First Union’s

secure document delivery needs were, who at First Union was in favor of the PostX

solution and who was against it, and who was involved in negotiating contracts on behalf

of First Union and used this information to solicit First Union as a customer . . . .

Additionally, Sigaba used the information it obtained from Reid in order to interfere with

PostX’s contractual relationships with Schwab and DST.

Id. at 4:9-16. Sigaba also propounded an interrogatory asking PostX to “[d]escribe in detail the damages

YOU contend YOU have suffered as a result of SIGABA’s alleged common law unfair competition.”

Id. at 6:21-22. PostX responded that it had suffered damages from the following specific entities, 

PostX’s damages include lost customer opportunities, which include, at a minimum, the

Fidelity account. Finally, PostX’s damages include the time and effort responding to the

disclosures and misuse of confidential PostX information made by Sigaba to Schwab and

DST and the effort in repairing relations with these entities. 

Id. at 7:24-27. 

Sigaba contends that now that discovery has closed, PostX should be precluded from arguing

at trial that its unfair competition claim encompasses accounts other than those identified in its

interrogatory responses, i.e., First Union, Schwab, DST and Fidelity.3

 Sigaba further argues that

PostX’s damages are limited solely to the Fidelity account. 

Posts responds that the Court has already rejected Sigaba’s argument that PostX’s damages are

solely limited to the lost Fidelity account. The August 17, 2005 order states:

Posts responded to the interrogatory regarding the damages it suffered as a result of

Sigaba’s alleged common law unfair competition by stating: “PostX’s damages include

lost customers opportunities, which include, at a minimum, the Fidelity account.”

According to Sigaba, these statements limit PostX’s claim for damages to the Fidelity

account, and this account is the only one discussed in the report of Michael Wagner,

PostX’s damages expert. As Posts points out, the Wagner report is not limited in this

way, but rather specifies two categories of damages: (1) $1,514,447 from the lost

Fidelity account, and (2) the $487,644 “opportunity cost” of an additional 1,400 hours

Posts spent servicing actual and potential clients. The Court concludes that PostX’s

alleged unfair competition damages include both of these figures.

August 17, 2005 Order at 4-5. Thus, the Court already concluded that PostX’s damages were not

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 8 of 12
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

4

 Thomas was produced as PostX’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness on damages that Posts has suffered

or incurred from any alleged unfair competition by either Jim Reid or Sigaba. 

9

limited to the lost Fidelity account, but that they also included the “opportunity cost” of time spent

servicing actual and potential clients, and accordingly Sigaba’s motion in limine is DENIED to the

extent it seeks to exclude all damages evidence unless it relates to the lost Fidelity account. Moreover,

the Court notes that PostX’s interrogatory response specifically stated that it suffered damages related

to Schwab and DST.

However, the Court’s holding that PostX’s damages include “opportunity costs” does not mean

that those opportunity costs include costs associated with entities that Posts did not disclose during the

discovery process. Posts argues that it was not required to supplement its interrogatory responses

because its CEO Thampy Thomas testified at length about the damages and injuries that Posts suffered,

and he testified that damages were not limited to the Fidelity account.4

 

The Court concludes that to the extent Posts will seek damages related to specific entities, such

as lost customer accounts or time spent servicing actual or potential clients, PostX’s damages are limited

to the entities identified in response to the contention interrogatories (First Union, Schwab, DST, and

Fidelity, as well as the additional entity mentioned in the Thomas deposition, Bank of America. See

Thomas Depo. at 663-65. Neither Wellmark or AFLAC was disclosed in response to Sigaba’s

contention interrogatories or mentioned in the Thomas deposition, and thus the Court concludes that it

would be unfair to allow Posts to claim at trial that it suffered damages related to these entities. See

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). Moreover, Posts has not identified any discovery response

or deposition testimony that would have put Sigaba on notice that it was claiming damages related to

Wellmark or AFLAC. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Sigaba’s motion in limine to the extent it seeks

to exclude damages evidence regarding entities other than Schwab, DST, Fidelity, and Bank of America.

Relatedly, the Court GRANTS in part Sigaba’s motion in limine to the extent it seeks to preclude Posts

from arguing at trial that its unfair competition claim encompasses accounts other than Schwab, DST,

Fidelity, First Union and Bank of America. 

B. PostX’s “Speculative” Damages 

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Sigaba contends that PostX’s damages claim regarding the lost Fidelity account is speculative

and thus Posts should be precluded from introducing any evidence that it lost the Fidelity account

because of Sigaba’s actions. Posts argues, and the Court agrees, that the Court has already rejected this

argument in connection with Sigaba’s unsuccessful motion for summary adjudication of PostX’s unfair

competition claim. The Court’s August 17, 2005 order states, “the Court finds that Posts has raised a

triable issue of fact on the unfair competition claim based on circumstantial evidence. PostX’s claim

rests on alleged disclosures made by James Reid of PostX’s confidential information to Sigaba after he

left Posts on April 4, 2002.” Order at 5. The Court rejected Sigaba’s argument that because PostX’s

evidence was circumstantial, it could not prove that it had lost the Fidelity account as a result of

Sigaba’s actions. See id. at 5-7. Accordingly, Sigaba’s motion in limine on this issue is DENIED.

C. Posts “Abandoned” Claims 

 Sigaba’s contention that Posts “abandoned” certain claims at summary judgment misstates

PostX’s claim. Posts is not alleging that Mr. Reid introduced Sigaba to Fidelity (or DST or Schwab),

or that Sigaba had no knowledge of these accounts prior to Mr. Reid’s email. Rather, Posts alleges that

Mr. Reid shared confidential Posts information with Sigaba that Sigaba used to win the Fidelity

statement account and that caused Posts to needlessly expend energy in other accounts that could have

been used for other sales opportunities. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Sigaba’s motion on this issue.

D. “Irrelevant” Evidence 

Sigaba contends that Posts should be precluded from introducing any evidence regarding what

transpired at a “handful of accounts (such as Wellmark, AFLAC, DST and Bank of America)” to

support its claim that Sigaba engaged in a pattern of business practices designed to unfairly compete

with Posts. Sigaba argues that such evidence should be excluded because (1) with the exception of

DST, none of the accounts were identified in PostX’s interrogatory responses; (2) at least certain of the

conduct at issue occurred “well” after the relevant time period in May-June 2002 when Mr. Reid and

Sigaba first communicated and therefore has nothing to do with any purported leak by Mr. Reid; (3)

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 10 of 12
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

11

evidence that occurred at a few accounts cannot constitute admissible “pattern” evidence under Federal

Rule of Evidence 404(b); and (4) Sigaba’s purported misrepresentations about its own technology are

not confidential Posts information that could support a common law unfair competition claim. 

In light of the Court’s holding supra that Posts may not put on evidence regarding Wellmark,

and AFLAC, the question is whether Posts can put on evidence that Sigaba allegedly made

misrepresentations to DST and Bank of America about PostX’s and Sigaba’s technology. Sigaba makes

much of the Court’s statement in its August 17, 2005 order that “this allegation cannot, on its own, form

the basis for PostX’s unfair competition claim, in part because it is difficult to see how pointing out the

differences between two products is an appropriation or use of the plaintiff’s confidential information.”

Order at 6. However, the Court concludes that even if such evidence is not actionable on its own, it is

relevant to PostX’s unfair competition claim, and accordingly Sigaba’s motion in limine on this issue

is DENIED.

 E. Mr. Wagner’s Expert Report Regarding Damages

Sigaba contends that the report of PostX’s damages expert, Mr. Wagner, should be excluded

because his damages calculations are based on speculative assumptions that Posts will be able to prove

that (1) it was unable to obtain a contract with Fidelity as a result of the information that Mr. Reid

allegedly provided to Sigaba, and (2) Posts personnel spent at least 1400 hours addressing statements

by Sigaba concerning defects in PostX’s technology. 

As discussed supra, the Court has already rejected Sigaba’s argument that Posts cannot show,

through circumstantial evidence, that Posts lost the Fidelity account. With respect to Mr. Wagner’s

“opportunity cost” estimate, the Court agrees with Posts that there is nothing in the Court’s August 2005

summary judgment orders that precludes Posts from seeking damages related to time spent dealing with

Mr. Reid’s disclosure of confidential information, and disclosure of alleged misinformation.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Sigaba’s motion in limine on this issue. 

6. PostX’s Objections to Sigaba’s Evidence

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 11 of 12
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

12

Posts objects to evidence submitted by Sigaba in connection with the instant motions in limine

on the grounds that such evidence is (1) irrelevant because it pertains to pre-November 2004 statements

and actions by Posts regarding the patent infringement lawsuits; (2) contains hearsay; and (3) lacks

foundation. Posts also objects to various exhibits related to Sigaba’s damages expert, Dr. WarrenBoulton, because he is the subject of a Daubert motion.

For the reasons set forth supra, the Court concludes that the pre-November 2004 evidence

Sigaba has submitted is not per se irrelevant. With respect to hearsay, Posts identifies only a few

examples of hearsay testimony submitted as exhibits to the Fisher declaration; the Court has not

considered any of this evidence for the purposes of determining the instant motions, and it is not

necessary at this point to comb through all of the voluminous exhibits submitted by the parties to

determine whether any particular piece of evidence is admissible. Similarly, PostX’s general objection

that “some of the exhibits proffered in the Fisher declaration lack foundation” lacks any specificity

whatsoever to constitute a proper objection. Finally, PostX’s objections to the exhibits submitted in

connection with Dr. Warren-Boulton can be re-raised in connection with PostX’s Daubert motion. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES Post-X’s

motions in limine nos. 2-5, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Sigaba’s motion in limine no. 4.

[Docket Nos. 917, 918, 922, 928, and 944]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1001 Filed 01/18/06 Page 12 of 12