Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-2/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 02CV2060-B (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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,

and

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.

_____________________________________

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Civil No: 02CV2060-B(CAB)

consolidated with

Civil No: 03CV0699-B (CAB) and

Civil No: 03CV1108-B (CAB)

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE FOR

GROUP 2 TRIAL

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 827 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 5
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 02CV2060-B (CAB)

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 

[Docket No. 615]

Preclude testimony of James D.

Johnston

GRANTED-INPART/DENIED-IN-PART;

Inventor may not testify as to any

issues of invalidity.

Lucent No. 2 

[Docket No. 616]

Preclude expert testimony of

John Rogitz on inequitable

conduct, ownership, inventorship

and USPTO procedures 

DENIED

Lucent No. 3

[Docket No. 617]

Preclude testimony on Lucent’s

ePAC software as an

embodiment 

DENIED

Lucent No. 4

[Docket No. 618]

Preclude testimony, evidence re

Dolby case 

GRANTED; Prior statements

may be used for purposes of

impeachment but no references

may be made to the Dolby case,

opinions, judgments thereon.

Lucent No. 5

[Docket No. 619]

Preclude testimony on Lucent’s

unrelated legal matters 

GRANTED

Lucent No. 6

[Docket No. 620]

Preclude expert testimony of

unsupported allegations of noninfringing alternatives

GRANTED

Lucent No. 7

[Docket No. 621]

Preclude Microsoft from

presenting evidence about future

trials

GRANTED; Statements made in

reference to issues presented in

other trials may be admissible for

impeachment but no reference

may be made to the future trials.

Lucent No. 8

[Docket No. 622]

Preclude Microsoft from

presenting evidence and

argument regarding settlement

negotiations 

GRANTED

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 827 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Motion No. Motion in limine Ruling

02CV2060-B (CAB)

Lucent No. 9

[Docket No. 623]

Preclude Microsoft from

presenting evidence and

argument regarding Lucent’s

market capitalization, licencing

revenues or valuation

GRANTED

Lucent No. 10

[Docket No. 624]

Preclude Microsoft from

presenting evidence not disclosed

in discovery (foreign distribution

of software)

GRANTED

Lucent No. 11

[Docket No. 625]

Preclude testimony of untimely

disclosed witnesses

DENIED; all witnesses disclosed

before close of discovery may

testify; Dr. Quackenbush also

may testify; Lucent may depose

these witnesses as necessary

before trial.

Lucent No. 12

[Docket No. 626]

Preclude evidence offered in

Napper’s 10/23/06 supplemental

expert report and 11/10/06

deposition

DENIED

Lucent No. 13

[Docket No. 627]

Preclude testimony regarding

alleged “design-arounds”

DENIED

Lucent No. 14

[Docket No. 628]

To bifurcate equitable defenses

into a separate bench trial and

preclude jury from hearing

evidence, argument or reference

to the equitable issues

DENIED

Lucent No. 15

[Docket No. 629]

Preclude elicitation of

duplicative testimony from

multiple experts at trial 

GRANTED

Lucent No. 16

[Docket No. 630]

Preclude evidence or argument

on documents first produced on

Dec. 10, 2006

DENIED

Microsoft No. 1

[Docket No. 637]

Preclude mention of other legal

proceedings regarding Microsoft 

DENIED; Prior statements may

be used but no references may be

made to the other proceedings,

opinions, judgments thereon.

Microsoft No. 2

[Docket No. 639]

Preclude reference to Microsoft’s

unaccused products 

DENIED

Microsoft No. 3

[Docket No. 641]

Preclude Lucent from arguing

that its inventions drive sales of

Windows or computer systems

DENIED

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 827 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Motion No. Motion in limine Ruling

02CV2060-B (CAB)

Microsoft No. 4

[Docket No. 643]

Preclude presentation of a

damages model that depends on

price of third party computers

rather than Microsoft’s software

DENIED

Microsoft No. 5

[Docket No. 645]

Preclude Roger Smith from

testifying about IBM’s licensing

policy or “the industry’s”

purported adoption of such 

DENIED

Microsoft No. 6

[Docket No. 647]

Preclude testimony about IBM’s

licensing policy or “the

industry’s” purported adoption of

such 

DENIED

Microsoft No. 7

[Docket No. 649]

Preclude Lucent’s damage

experts from endorsing the work

of others

GRANTED; Expert may base

his or her opinion on calculations

of another but may not vouch for

those calculations.

Microsoft No. 8

[Docket No. 651]

Preclude testimony on Lucent’s

damages theories 

DENIED

Microsoft No. 9

[Docket No. 653]

Preclude testimony on the

number of accused ‘457 units

GRANTED

Microsoft No. 10

[Docket No. 655]

Exclude testimony on the number

of accused ‘080 units

DENIED

Microsoft No. 11

[Docket No. 657]

Exclude Nov 6 2006

supplemental report of expert

Jayant and all opinions and

deposition testimony thereon

DENIED

Microsoft No. 12

[Docket No. 659]

Preclude Lucent from discussing

(1) the AHT of the HQ encoder;

(2) the “short blocks” for the fast

encoder and HQ encoders and

the operation of the HQ encoder

GRANTED-INPART/DENIED-IN-PART;

Experts may testify only to

opinions contained in their expert

reports.

Microsoft No. 13

[Docket No. 661]

Preclude introduction of Lucent’s

tests concerning the HQ encoder

GRANTED

Microsoft No. 14

[Docket No. 663]

Exclude reference to patent

application no. 11/248,622 

GRANTED

Microsoft No. 15

[Docket No. 665]

Preclude Lucent from alleging an

error was made in the ‘938 patent

beyond what is stated in the file

history

GRANTED

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 827 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Motion No. Motion in limine Ruling

02CV2060-B (CAB)

Microsoft No. 16

[Docket No. 667]

Preclude opinions or evidence on

unreliability of debugger on

Microsoft’s secure computer

DENIED

Microsoft No. 17

[Docket No. 669]

Preclude argument or suggestion

that Microsoft’s removal of HQ

encoder in WMP11 is an

admission of liability of

infringement

GRANTED

Microsoft No. 18

[Docket No. 671]

Preclude Lucent from alleging

that Johnston was hired by

Microsoft to defend this case

GRANTED

Microsoft No. 19

[Docket No. 673]

Preclude suggestion that

Microsoft’s lack of an opinion of

counsel indicates anything

regarding willfulness

DENIED

Microsoft No. 20

[Docket No. 675]

Preclude Lucent from

mentioning whether its experts

have been retained by Fish &

Richardson in other cases

DENIED

Microsoft No. 21

[Docket No. 677]

Preclude Lucent from

mentioning the irrelevant

Intel/Broadcom litigation or any

portion thereof

DENIED

Microsoft No. 22

[Docket No. 679]

Preclude Lucent from

mentioning the existence and

contents of draft expert reports

GRANTED

Microsoft No. 23

[Docket No. 681]

Preclude Lucent from discussing

the value of cross-licenses

DENIED except that experts

may testify to desirability of

cross-licenses; experts may not

testify to any monetary figures. 

Microsoft No. 24

[Docket No. 683]

Preclude Lucent from

introducing evidence or

argument regarding Microsoft’s

foreign sales

DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: January 8, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Judge

cc: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 827 Filed 01/08/07 Page 5 of 5