Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 394 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 29202
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ORDER ON TOYOTA’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 (DKT. 326)
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-CV-01274-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AMERICAN
`HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., HONDA OF
`AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC.,
`HONDA MANUFACTURING OF
`ALABAMA, LLC, HONDA
`MANUFACTURING OF INDIANA, LLC,
`
`Toyota moves in limine to preclude Blitzsafe from offering testimony or argument that is
`
`contrary to the Court’s Claim Construction Order. Dkt. 326 at 2-6. First, Toyota argues that
`
`Blitzsafe should be precluded from arguing that the claimed “external” audio device must be a
`
`device that is not made to work in an automobile. Id. at 2-3. The Court agrees.
`
`The Court construed the term “external” to mean “outside and alien to the environment of
`
`an OEM or after-market stereo system.” Dkt. 146 at 45. This construction was based on the
`
`agreement of the parties—the parties agreed to the phrase “outside and alien.” Id. at 43. The
`
`parties are now disputing what “outside and alien” means. Accordingly, the Court must resolve
`
`the dispute. See O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008).
`
`The phrase “outside and alien” does not limit the term “external” to devices that were not
`
`made to work in automobiles. See Dkt. 354 at 2 (Blitzsafe’s Response Brief) (Blitzsafe’s
`
`understanding of the Court’s construction . . . means that the device was not made to work in ‘the
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 394 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 29203
`
`environment of an OEM or after-market stereo system.’”) (emphasis added). Blitzsafe cites no
`
`support in the intrinsic record for the contrary conclusion, and upon review of the record, the
`
`Court does not find a reason to limit the claims in the manner suggested by Blitzsafe.
`
`Second, Toyota argues that Blitzsafe should be precluded from taking the position that
`
`“encoded audio sent over a wireless communication link can fall within the ’342 patent claims so
`
`long as it was previously decoded by a portable device.” Dkt. 326 at 3. The Court agrees with
`
`Toyota.
`
`The Court construed the term “generated by the portable device” to mean “produced by
`
`the portable device as decoded audio signals for playing on the car audio/video system.” Dkt.
`
`146 at 33. This construction was based in part on Blitzsafe’s argument during inter partes review
`
`that “the portable device has to send decoded audio signals” to the car audio or video system. Id.
`
`at 34. Accordingly, Blitzsafe is precluded from arguing that an accused system in which a
`
`portable device sends encoded audio or video data falls within the scope of the claims as long as
`
`the audio or video data has been decoded by a portable device at some point in the past.
`
`Blitzsafe is not precluded, however, from arguing than an accused system falls within the
`
`scope of the claims even though the accused system further processes the audio or video data
`
`after the decoded data has been sent to the car audio or video system. See id. at 35 (“[T]he Court
`
`finds that Blitzsafe did not clearly and unambiguously state that no additional decoding can be
`
`done to the data ‘before being output through the car audio/video system.’”).
`
`Finally, the parties are reminded that the claim construction phase of this case is over.
`
`The Court will be more inclined to find that a party waived a claim construction argument as the
`
`case gets closer to trial. See Cent. Admixture Pharm. Servs. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C.,
`
`482 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming district court finding that claim construction
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 394 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29204
`
`argument not raised during claim construction phase is waived); see also Arthrex v. Smith &
`
`Nephew, Inc., 2:15-cv-1047-RSP, Dkt. 293 (E.D. Tex. December 9, 2016) (finding claim
`
`construction argument raised during the charge conference waived).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`