Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910-20/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 MOTIONS IN LIMINE

This order rules on the parties’ motions in limine. See Dkt. Nos. 397, 392, 393, 394, 413, 

414, 419, 396, 398, 415, 397, 399, 401, 402, 404, 406, 405. As a shorthand, the Court refers to the 

defendants collectively as “Box.”

I. BOX’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Motion in Limine No. 1: Expert Testimony Not Disclosed in Reports

Denied as moot with respect to Krista Holt’s opinions in light of the Court’s order 

excluding the opinions of Ms. Holt. See Dkt. No. 464. If Open Text submits a proffer as outlined 

in that order, and the proffer includes an issue raised in this motion in limine, Box may renew the 

objection. Granted with respect to expert opinions regarding Open Text Core. Denied as moot 

with respect to the source code opinions and opinions regarding the similarity of Livelink 9.5 with 

Livelink 7.0. See Dkt. No. 454.

B. Motion in Limine No. 2: Expert Testimony on Date of Knowledge of Patents-inSuit

Granted. Expert witnesses cannot simply vouch for one side’s version of the facts. The 

parties’ experts are precluded from testifying about when defendants were appraised of the 

patents-in-suit. They also may not opine on the ultimate question of intent for purposes of induced 

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 469 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 4
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

infringement. However, parties’ experts are not precluded from offering evidence and testimony 

about facts and evidence relevant to defendants’ intent to infringe, or lack thereof, including 

evidence and testimony about defendants’ belief in the validity of the patents-in-suit and the 

reasonableness of defendants’ belief.

C. Motion in Limine No. 3: Evidence of Box’s Own Patents

Granted. The probative value of Box’s patents and patent applications is slight and 

substantially outweighed by the likelihood of confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and 

wasting time. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

D. Motion in Limine No. 4: Evidence of Box’s Employees’ Ability to Search for 

Patents-in-Suit

Denied. This testimony is relevant because it may show: (1) defendants knew or should 

have known of Open Text’s patents and intended to cause infringement; (2) Box’s employees

lacked knowledge of non-infringing alternatives; (3) whether Box knew or should have known 

about the risk that it was infringing a valid patent post-suit. Although Box’s employees’ ability to 

search for the patents-in-suit is not particularly strong evidence, Box has not demonstrated that 

relevance here is substantially outweighed by potential prejudice. 

E. Motion in Limine No. 5: Evidence of Box’s Valuation, Equity Financing, 

Revenues, and Number of Free Users

Granted in part with respect to evidence of Box’s valuation before its anticipated IPO, 

the value of Box’s equity financing, and Box’s annual revenues. 

Denied in part with respect to evidence about the number of Box’s free users

F. Motion in Limine No. 6: Intangible Technology Asset Valuation

Denied as moot in light of the Court’s order excluding the opinions of Ms. Holt. See Dkt. 

No. 464.

G. Motion in Limine No. 7: Open Text’s Reasons for Settling with Alfresco and 

Reasons that Efforts to License the ’177 Patent Failed

Denied as moot with respect to Ms. Holt in light of the order excluding her opinions. See 

Dkt. No. 464. Denied also with respect to testimony by Open Text witnesses. If those witnesses 

have admitted in deposition that they lacked information that they now propose to testify on, their 

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 469 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

deposition testimony can be used to impeach them at trial.

H. Motion in Limine No. 8: Krista Holt’s testimony that Box’s discovery was 

deficient

Denied as moot in light of the Court’s order excluding the opinions of Ms. Holt. See Dkt. 

No. 464.

I. Motion in Limine No. 9: Evidence and argument on the value of file sharing in 

general, without proving it infringes

Denied as moot in light of the Court’s order excluding the opinions of Ms. Holt. See Dkt. 

No. 464. 

J. Motion in Limine No. 10: Holt’s Analysis of the Cost of Livelink

Denied as moot in light of the Court’s order excluding the opinions of Ms. Holt and the 

order granting Box’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. Nos. 454, 464. 

II. OPEN TEXT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Motion in Limine No. 1: Testimony from Ryan Knotts and Sam Ghods

Denied as moot. See Dkt. Nos. 441 and 454.

B. Motion in Limine No. 2: Court’s order denying preliminary injunction

Granted. However, the Court has bifurcated the trial to include a separate willfulness 

phase, if the jury finds that a valid patent was infringed. If the willfulness phase takes place, the 

order denying a preliminary injunction will be admissible during that phase.

C. Motion in Limine No. 3: Evidence or testimony regarding Alfresco’s motion to 

dismiss based on 35 U.S.C. § 101

Granted. 

D. Motion in Limine No. 4: Evidence or argument regarding “paid-up” or “lump 

sum” damages through the expiration of the patent

The Court defers ruling on this motion.

E. Motion in Limine No. 5: Suggestions that Open Text’s corporate structure is 

meant to operate as a “tax shelter”

Granted. Box may discuss Open Text’s corporate structure without using the term “tax 

shelter.”

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 469 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

F. Motion in Limine No. 6: Arguments regarding the USPTO’s workload

Granted. The parties are permitted to quote statements made in the Federal Judicial 

Center video on patents, which will be shown to the jury prior to the trial. Box will be permitted 

to argue to the jury that a prior art reference was not before the USPTO.

G. Motion in Limine No. 7: Allegedly irrelevant litigation settlements

Denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015

______________________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 469 Filed 01/26/15 Page 4 of 4