Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
May 26, 2017, Decided; May 26, 2017, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-CV-00201-JRG
On May 25, 2017 this Court held a pretrial conference at which it resolved several matters pertaining to trial. As to the parties' motions in limine (Doc. Nos. 756 and 757), the Court has ruled on those motions, and this Order memorializes and summarizes the Court's rulings at the hearing:
Plaintiffs' Motions In Limine:
• Motion in Limine #1 (Doc. No. 756) (Preclude Defendants from Raising Any [*3] Equitable Defenses Or Evidence Relating Only to Such Equitable Defenses) is DENIED. The parties shall present all issues to be tried before the jury in the trial time allocated by the Court (to be determined).
• Motion in Limine #2 (Doc. No. 756) (Reference to Reexamination and Rejection of Proposed New Claims) is GRANTED. Statements or documents from the inter partes reexamination related to unasserted claims shall not be made or referenced.
• Motion in Limine #3 (Doc. No. 756) (Reference to the Vacated Indefiniteness Holding) is GRANTED. No party shall refer to the Court's vacated indefiniteness holding or the Federal Circuit's opinion remanding.
• Motion in Limine #4 (Doc. No. 756) (Reference to Litigation Funding or Related Documents) is GRANTED. No references, argument, or evidence regarding litigation funding documents.
• Motion in Limine #5 (Doc. No. 756) (Reference to Arbitration Proceedings) is GRANTED. No references, argument, or evidence regarding the arbitration proceedings.
• Motion in Limine #6 (Doc. No. 756) (Reference to Bankruptcy Proceedings) is GRANTED. No references, argument, or evidence relating to the bankruptcy proceedings.
• Motion in Limine #7 (Doc. No. 756) (Reliance [*4] on Advice of Counsel) is GRANTED. No references, argument, or evidence relating to advice of counsel.
• Motion in Limine #8 (Doc. No. 756) (References to Pejorative Labels for Plaintiffs, Patent, or Case) is GRANTED as follows: the term "patent assertion entity" or "non-practicing entity" may be used, but no reference to Plaintiffs as "shell," "sham," "conspirator," "patent troll," and no use of the terms "paper patent," "stick up," "hold up," "shakedown," or "litigation lottery."Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157062 *; 2017 WL 2773944
EIDOS DISPLAY, LLC, EIDOS III, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CHI MEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA, INC., CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD., HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORPORATION, HANNSPREE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants.
Prior History: Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155936 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 21, 2011)
motion in limine, Defenses, no reference, license, Patent, no party, Documents, discovery, indefiniteness, Proceedings