IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00454-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00461-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00465-ADA 

PATENT CASE 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER CONERNING BRAZOS’S OMNIBUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE

 Before the Court is Brazos’s Omnibus Motions In Limine. The Court, having considered 

the same, is of the opinion the motions should be granted or denied as laid out below: 

MiL No. Description Decision 

1 References or Arguments to Motions or Arguments 

or in Contradiction to the Markman Orders or Other 

Prior Orders By This Court. 

2 References to Privileged or Protected Material, 

Including (a) Questions Intended to Provoke an 

Answer That is Privileged or Protected, Including 

References to Claims of Privilege; (b) the Nature of 

Any Fact Witness’s Preparation for Trial or for 

Deposition Testimony with That Witness’s 

Counsel; (c) the Nature of Any Expert Witness’s 

Preparation for Trial or for Deposition Testimony 

with That Party’s Counsel; or (d) References to a 

Client’s Fee Agreements. 

3 Criticisms of the Patent Office or Its Employees. 

4 Other Patents as a Defense to Damages Due to 

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 147-1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

“Royalty Stacking.” 

5 References to Other Proceedings including Inter 

Partes Reviews. 

6 References to or Evidence Concerning Equitable 

Issues, Laches, Inequitable Conduct, Deceptive 

Intent, Fraud on the Patent Office, Misstatements 

about Claim Scope, Misleading the Patent Office, 

Misrepresentations to the Patent Office, or 

Withholding from the Patent Office. 

7 Relative Importance of Claim Elements. 

8 Evidence, Testimony, or Argument That the 

Accused Products Do Not Resemble the Examples 

in the Specification. 

9 Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Concerning 

Unanalyzed or Unelected Prior Art as Either 

Invalidating or Disclosing a Non-Infringing 

Alternative. 

10 Brazos’s Business Model and Name. 

11 Non-Infringement Arguments based on Preferred 

Embodiments. 

12 Prior Claims, Causes of Action, or Forms of Relief. 

13 Compensation to Brazos’s Owners, Officers, 

Employees, and Investors From Interest in Brazos. 

14 Microsoft’s Patents. 

15 References to Forum Shopping, Litigation Abuse, 

or the Western District of Texas as a Popular or 

Improper Venue. 

16 Argument or evidence that the damages sought are 

unprecedented or represent a lottery ticket or similar 

disparaging terms or arguments. 

17 Microsoft’s Reputation in the Industry, Innovation, 

or Philanthropy. 

18 References to Potential Damages as Increasing the 

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 147-1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

Price of Products or Leading to Job Loses. 

19 Predecessors’ Non-Assertion of Patents-in-Suit 

against Microsoft. 

20 Value and propriety of Patents Acquired from 

Others. 

21 Absence of Inventors at Trial. 

22 Allegations that Individual Claim elements Were In 

the Prior Art. 

23 Witnesses Not Disclosed and Contained on 

Microsoft’s Witness List. 

24 Law Firm and Lawyer Characteristics. 

25 References to How or to Whom a Damages Award 

May be Distributed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ day of _________________, 2022. 

 ____________________________________ 

 HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00465-ADA Document 147-1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 3 of 3