Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OPEN TEXT S.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOX, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04910-JD 

ORDER RE WITNESS AND EXHIBIT 

OBJECTIONS FOR 2/2/15 AND 2/3/15

Re: Dkt. Nos. 507, 516

This order rules on Defendants’ objections to Open Text’s witnesses and testimony for 

February 2, 2015, and February 3, 2015. See Dkt. Nos. 507, 516.

I. OBJECTIONS FOR FEBRUARY 2, 2015 (DKT. NO. 507)

1. Dr. Nathaniel Polish: Granted. Open Text claims that Dr. Polish’s testimony would be 

“limited to noninfringing functionality of the accused Box products.” See Dkt. No. 507 at 

4. But the only way to determine what functionality is noninfringing is to know what 

functionality is infringing, and Dr. Polish admitted in deposition that he had “no opinions 

whatsoever” concerning the patents-in-suit. See Dkt. No. 486-5 at 249:9-15.

2. TX254: Denied.

3. TX388: Granted.

4. Sebastian Lemenager: Granted.

5. TX011: Denied.

6. Paul Loomis’s documents concerning Nimbus/Core: Granted.

7. Adam Howatson’s testimony and documents: Granted in part and denied in part. Mr. 

Howatson was disclosed in Open Text’s initial disclosures as “[l]ikely to have discoverable 

information concerning the development, design, and sale of Open Text Corp./Inc.’s 

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 520 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

products.” He will therefore be permitted to offer any testimony within his personal 

knowledge on the “development, design, and sale” of any Open Text product that is 

analogous to the accused products and introduce any documents concerning the 

development, design, and sale of those products, including their pricing, margins, growth, 

and convoyed sales, as long as Open Text will offer expert testimony to support its claim 

that the products are analogous. He will not be permitted to testify about Box’s products 

and pricing, the “ability to separate the value of the patented feature from the value of the 

whole Box service,” or Open Text’s licensing policies. He will also not be permitted to 

testify or introduce documents concerning Nimbus/Core in light of the Court’s ruling on 

Box’s Motion in Limine No. 1. See Dkt. No. 469-1. 

II. OBJECTIONS FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2015 (DKT. NO. 516)

1. TX395, TX322: Denied, unless Defendants will not introduce or rely on the IBM license. 

If so, granted.

2. Salazar deposition testimony re Box patents: Denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 520 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2