UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

DROPBOX, INC.,

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant, 

v. 

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Defendant/CounterPlaintiff. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00251-ADA

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX, INC.,

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-758-ADA

DROPBOX INC.’S OPPOSED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of 13
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. MIL NO. 1: Preclude Evidence or Argument Concerning Dropbox’s Size, 

Wealth, and Financial Performance ........................................................................... 1

II. MIL NO. 2: Motion to Exclude References to or Presentation of Pleadings, 

Motions, Briefing and Other Litigation Filings.......................................................... 1

III. MIL NO. 3: Preclude the Use of Deregatory Words to Imply Willful 

Infringement or Copying Because There Is No Allegation or Evidence of 

Willful Infringement or Copying ............................................................................... 3

IV. MIL NO. 4: Preclude the Introduction of Irrelevant Dropbox Surveys....................... 4

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 2 of 13
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

 Page(s) 

Cases

Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., 

No. 6:11-CV-00201, 2017 WL 2773944 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2017)................................. 3

FastShip, LLC v. United States, 

892 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................ 2

Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Apple Inc., 

No. 2:15-cv-621-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 7743510 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) ..................... 1

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., 

No. 2:13-cv-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 627430 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2015)......................... 1

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 

978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020).....................................................................................6, 7

Tucker v. SAS Institute, Inc.,

462 F. Supp. 2d 715 (N.D. Tex. 2006)............................................................................. 2

Two Rivers Pipeline & Construction Co., Inc. v. Cimarex Energy Co., 

No. P:19-CV-049-DC, 2020 WL 6379242 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2020)............................ 2

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 

632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................ 1

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 3 of 13
1

I. MIL NO. 1: PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT CONCERNING 

DROPBOX’S SIZE, WEALTH, AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 

The Court should exclude evidence and argument referring to Dropbox’s total company 

revenues, overall size, and financial performance. That information is irrelevant and unfairly 

prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 

1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (evidence of a company’s revenues “cannot help but skew the damages 

horizon for the jury”). Courts routinely exclude such evidence and argument of financial 

metrics from trial. See, e.g., Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 

2:15-cv-621-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 7743510, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) (excluding 

evidence of defendant’s wealth, profits, revenue, and size); Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. 

Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:13-cv-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 627430, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 

2015) (same). In particular, there is no reason for Motion Offense to introduce revenues, 

profits, or other dollar values other than the prices per month of each accused subscriber plan 

because those are the only dollar amounts used by Motion Offense’s damages expert in his 

damages analysis. 

II. MIL NO. 2: MOTION TO EXCLUDE REFERENCES TO OR 

PRESENTATION OF PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, BRIEFING AND OTHER 

LITIGATION FILINGS.

Dropbox requests that the Court exclude any references to or presentation of pleadings, 

motions, briefing, and other litigation filings as evidence at trial. Motion Offense’s March 7, 

2023 proposed exhibit list includes at least 46 exhibits that are pleadings, the parties’ litigation 

filings (such as motions for summary judgment and claim construction filings), or litigation 

filings from unrelated matters. See, e.g., Ex. 1, (Motion Offense Exhibit List) at Ex. 179 

(Dropbox’s Proposed Terms for Claim Construction, dated 9/30/2020), Ex. 191 (Excerpts from 

the Case Management Conference transcript, dated 7/6/2022 (Dkt. 173-2)), Ex. 806 (claim 

construction order in Justservice.net LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (Case No. 6:20-cv-00070), 

6/2/2021), Ex. 807 (complaint from Synkloud Technologies, LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (Case No. 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 4 of 13
2

6:19-cv-00525), 9/6/2019), and Ex. 1364 (Dropbox’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Lack 

of Patent Eligibility, dated 2/24/2023 (Dkt. 193, 193-1)). These litigation materials, which 

consist almost entirely of attorney argument, are not evidence and should be excluded. 

First, it is axiomatic that “‘attorney argument is not evidence.’” FastShip, LLC v. 

United States, 892 F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. 

Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017)); Two Rivers Pipeline & Constr. Co., Inc. 

v. Cimarex Energy Co., No. P:19-CV-049-DC, 2020 WL 6379242, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 

2020) (“Motions are attorneys’ written arguments and it is well-settled that attorneys’ 

arguments are not evidence.”) (citing Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 513 (5th Cir. 2008)); 

Tucker v. SAS Inst., Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 715, 723 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (holding that “briefs . . . , 

like an attorney’s opening or closing argument in trial, are not evidence” and are inadmissible). 

All attorney-authored pleadings, motions, and briefing should therefore be excluded pursuant 

to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. 

Second, any purported relevance of these materials is outweighed by the likelihood of 

jury confusion and the potential for undue prejudice to Dropbox and time wasting. The issues 

covered by the litigation filings on Motion Offense’s exhibit list include claim construction, 

summary judgment, Daubert motions, motions to stay, and motion to strike, all of which are 

questions of law for the Court, not the jury, to decide. See Ex. 1 (Motion Offense exhibit list) 

at Exs. 179, 180, 191, 192, 195, 311, 801, 802, 803, 804, 804, 806, 807, 808, 1320, 1321, 1322, 

1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1341, 1353, 1354, 1357, 1358, 1364, 1377, 1386, 

1402, 1413, 1424, 1425, 1427, 1428, 1431, 1432, 1466, 1467, 1560. It would be extremely 

confusing and prejudicial to present such documents to the jury as they are not issues the jury 

will be asked to decide. Further, references to or presentation of motions filed by Dropbox and 

denied by this Court risk prejudicing the jury against Dropbox, as does allowing Motion 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 5 of 13
3

Offense to reference or enter into evidence miscellaneous complaints for cases that name 

Dropbox as defendant (but which do not involve Motion Offense or the asserted patents at all). 

For the foregoing reasons, Dropbox respectfully asks that the Court exclude any 

references to or presentation of pleadings, motions, briefing, or litigation filings at trial. 

III. MIL NO. 3: PRECLUDE THE USE OF DEROGATORY WORDS TO IMPLY 

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OR COPYING BECAUSE THERE IS NO 

ALLEGATION OR EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OR 

COPYING 

Motion Offense should be precluded from using inflammatory language to imply that 

Dropbox willfully infringed or copied Motion Offense’s technology. In the present case, there 

is no allegation or evidence of willful infringement or copying. There is no mention of willful 

infringement or copying in any of Motion Offense’s infringement contentions, interrogatory 

responses, or expert reports. There is also no allegation in the pleadings of pre-suit knowledge 

of the asserted patents in this case. See, e.g., Dkt. 43 at 11 ¶ 21. Therefore, it would be 

irrelevant, prejudicial, and misleading to the jury for Motion Offense to make argument or use 

derogatory terms implying that Dropbox copied or willfully infringed. Courts routinely 

preclude plaintiffs from using charge words such as ‘copying,’ ‘stealing,’ ‘taking,’ and 

‘robbing,’ to describe defendants’ actions because such words have no probative value and 

serve only to inflame the jury. See, e.g., Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., No. 

6:11-CV-00201, 2017 WL 2773944, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2017) (“No party shall use the 

terms ‘steal’ or ‘stole’ at trial.”); Ex. 2, Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:16-

cv-00052, slip op. at 13 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) (“Huawei may not present evidence or 

argument that T-Mobile or Intervenors ‘copied’ the patent(s)-in-suit or are otherwise 

‘copyists.’”). The Court should preclude the use of such terms and argument here. 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 6 of 13
4 

IV. MIL NO. 4: PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF IRRELEVANT 

DROPBOX SURVEYS 

Motion Offense should be precluded under Fed. R. Evid. 402 & 403 from offering into 

evidence or referring to PTX-112, PTX-113, and PTX-115. These are compilations of survey 

results that do not focus on any accused feature or set of features. To the contrary, these surveys 

unquestionably include responses regarding unaccused Dropbox plans, unaccused Dropbox 

features (including prior art features) and even responses from non-Dropbox users. They are 

entirely irrelevant to any disputed issue in the case. And even if they had some marginal 

relevance (which they do not), their probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of 

unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury, because the only way that 

Motion Offense could use these documents would be to attempt to confuse the jury into 

thinking that they represent the value of the accused Dropbox features.1

 

First, the surveys are irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402 because there is no information 

relating specifically to accused plans and accused features in these documents. They are thus 

irrelevant to any issue that the jury is being asked to decide. For example: 

• PTX-112 is a 

 Ex. 3, [DRBX_MoOff_000030882 (PTX-112)] at -882. (Motion 

Offense’s contention in this case is limited to an argument that post-2015 Dropbox 

features infringe.) The presentation describes 

). PTX-112 is irrelevant 

because 

1 The Dropbox surveys should also be excluded for the reasons presented in Dropbox, Inc.’s 

Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Stephen E. Dell. See Dkt. 195 at 4-14. The surveys 

should be excluded even if the Court grants the Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Stephen 

E. Dell because these documents will be even less relevant and more prejudicial if introduced 

into evidence through an alternative witness for the reasons stated in this motion in limine. 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 7 of 13
5 

. See Ex. 3, [DRBX_MoOff_000030882 (PTX112)] at -891, -904. Moreover, PTX-112 does not describe 

 See id. at 

-892. The surveys provide no information whatsoever as to whether respondents 

 Motion Offense’s damage expert, Mr. Stephen 

Dell, admitted that 

Dkt. 195-5 (Dell Dep.) at 189:3-12 

. Correct? A. There are, yes. Q. And this description, 

 Correct? A. Yes, as 

well as encompasses ways that do infringe. I would agree.”). 

• PTX-113 is a Ex. 

4, [DRBX_MoOff_000031325 (PTX-113)] at -325. It details some of the results of a 

 And it is similarly irrelevant. Motion Offense relies on PTX-113 to 

show that 

. Dkt. 195-2 [Dell 

Rep.] ¶ 261 (citing Ex. 4, [DRBX_MoOff_000031325 (PTX-113)] at -336). This data 

about how is irrelevant because the survey 

results described in PTX-113 included both 

 Motion Offense also relies on PTX-113 to show that 

Dkt. 195-2 [Dell 

Rep.] ¶ 208 (citing Ex. 4, [DRBX_MoOff_000031325 (PTX-113)] at -346). But the 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 8 of 13
6 

. Ex. 4, 

[DRBX_MoOff_000031325 (PTX-113)] at -346 

 

• PTX-115 is a 

5, [DRBX_MoOff_000031648 (PTX-115)] at -648. The document describes some of 

the findings of a Dropbox survey 

 Ex. 5, [DRBX_MoOff_000031648 (PTX-115)] at -

648. Because , the document has no relevance to 

this case. 

As a result, these surveys are irrelevant because they do not show information specific to the 

accused features or the accused plans. 

Even if these surveys did somehow provide information specific to the accused features 

or the accused plans (which they do not), customers’ use of Dropbox is not relevant to Motion 

Offense’s claims in this case. Motion Offense is only asserting direct infringement by 

Dropbox—not its customers. See Dkt. 247, Motion Offense’s Opp. to Dropbox’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of Non-infringement, at 1 (“Motion Offense alleges that Dropbox directly 

infringes through Dropbox’s software coupled with Dropbox’s backend services and/or 

hardware.”). Despite this, Motion Offense points to these customer surveys as evidence of 

supposed damages. But damages must be tied to the allegedly infringing activity. See, e.g.,

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Because Motion Offense 

is not asserting indirect infringement by Dropbox’s customers, Dkt. 247 at 1 n.1, the surveys’ 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 9 of 13
7 

purported information regarding customers’ purchase and use of the accused plans is 

irrelevant.2

 

Second, these surveys should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial and misleading under 

Fed. R. Evid. 403 because the limited (if any) data these documents provide regarding accused 

features and accused plans is intermingled with and indistinguishable from data regarding 

unaccused features (including prior art features), unaccused plans, and non-Dropbox users. It 

would thus be misleading and unfairly prejudicial for Motion Offense to introduce these 

documents as evidence of the value of accused features. It would also be misleading to suggest 

these surveys are evidence of infringement or damages when they have no connection to the 

activity Motion Offense alleges to infringe—i.e., supposed direct infringement by Dropbox’s 

own use of the Dropbox software. 

Motion Offense mischaracterizes Dropbox’s use of this survey data, claiming 

 Dkt. 241 [Motion Offense, LLC’s Opp’n to 

Dropbox, Inc.’s Mot. to Exclude the Ops. of Stephen E. Dell] at 3. But that is misleading. 

Although 

 See Ex. 6 [Shu Dep.] at 21:16-22:11. Yet, Motion Offense relies on a survey that 

, PTX-112, pointing to survey results 

 Dkt. 195-2 [Dell Rep.] ¶¶ 250-53; Ex. 3, [DRBX_MoOff_000030882 (PTX-112)] at -

892, -905. It is misleading and unfairly prejudicial to use PTX-112, a 

2 See TecSec, 978 F.3d at 1291-92 (“Sales of Acrobat . . . cannot be a measure of damages for 

direct infringement by Adobe—sales could serve here as a measure of damages only for 

TecSec’s indirect infringement theory, which relies on infringement by Adobe customers.” 

(citations omitted)).

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 10 of 13
8 

what Motion Offense points to as the accused features) describing unaccused 

features and unaccused plans, as evidence of Dropbox’s pricing decisions. 

For the forgoing reasons, the Court should preclude Motion Offense from offering into 

evidence or referring to PTX-112, PTX-113, and PTX-115. 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 11 of 13
9 

March 28, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory H. Lantier 

Kelly Ransom

Texas State Bar No. 24109427

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: (512) 495-6464 

Kelly.ransom@kellyhart.com 

Gregory H. Lantier

Amanda L. Major (pro hac vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC 20037

Tel: (202) 663-6327 

Tel: (202) 663-6304 

gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com

amanda.major@wilmerhale.com

Liv Herriot

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400

Palo Alto, California 94306

Tel: (650) 858-6138 

liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com

Makenzi G. Herbst (pro hac vice) 

Rauvin A. Johl (pro hac vice) 

Jeannette Leopold (pro hac vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109 

Tel: (617) 526-6171 

Tel: (617) 526-6104 

Tel: (617) 526-6109 

makenzi.herbst@wilmerhale.com

rauvin.johl@wilmerhale.com 

jeannette.leopold@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Dropbox, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 12 of 13
10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the 

foregoing document via electronic mail on March 28, 2023.

 /s/ Kelly Ransom

Kelly Ransom 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 290 Filed 04/04/23 Page 13 of 13