Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00031-ADA
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FLYPSI, INC. (D/B/A FLYP),
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`JOINT NOTICE IDENTIFYING REMAINING OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL
`DISCLOSURES AND DISPUTES ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, W.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-
`
`16, the Court’s Amended Standing Order on Pretrial Procedures and Requirements in Civil Cases
`
`(dated May 23, 2023), and the Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 128), Plaintiff Flypsi, Inc.
`
`(“Flyp”) and Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) submit this joint notice identifying remaining
`
`objections to pretrial disclosures and disputes on motions in limine in this case in advance of the
`
`Final Pretrial Conference scheduled for January 17, 2024. Jury selection and Trial are scheduled
`
`for February 19, 2024.
`
`Flyp’s objections to Google’s amended witness list are attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Google’s objections to Flyp’s first amended witness list are attached as Exhibit B.
`
`The parties’ joint motion regarding agreed motions in limine is being filed concurrently
`
`with this notice.
`
`The following chart compiles the pending motions in limine in this case.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 7
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 7
`
`PENDING MOTIONS
`
`ECF NOS.
`
`Flyp’s Motions in Limine (MILs)
`Flyp’s MIL 1: No Argument or Evidence Regarding Inventorship or
`Specific Contributions of Each Inventorto the Patents.
`
`Flyp’s MIL 4: No Argument or Evidence Regarding that Flyp has the
`Burden to Establish the Changes in Google Voice
`Flyp’s MIL 8: No Argument or Evidence Regarding the Familial or
`Personal Relationships of Flyp Employees or Agents, or Any Potential
`Witness
`
`223, 237
`
`223, 237
`
`223, 237
`
`223, 237
`
`223, 237
`
`223, 237
`
`financial size, wealth, or executive compensation.
`
`Court MIL No.3: The parties shall be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any party’s overall
`financial size, wealth, or executive compensation.
`Court MIL No.4: The parties shall be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument regarding priorart that is not
`disclosed in a specific combination set forth in any party’s expert
`report or invalidity
`contentions.
`Court MIL No.5: Theparties shall be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument before the jury that relates only to
`equitable defenses or counterclaims (1.e., evidence that does not also
`serve another evidentia
`pose relevant to jury
`issues).
`Court MIL No.6: The parties shall be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument concerning the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board,inter partes review, the Smith-Leahy America Invents
`Act, or any alternative structure that does notrelate directly to an
`Article III trial in a district court.
`Google’s Motions in Limine (MILs)
`Google’s MIL 1: No Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Regarding
`Undisclosed Facts ime, as to which Flyp
`Invoked Privilege
`Google’s MIL 3: No Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Regarding the|226, 235
`November 2015 Meeting
`Google’s MIL 4: No Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Suggesting
`that Google Voice was Considered by the U.S. Patent Office in
`Connection with the Asserted Patents
`Google’s Requests for Clarification of Court’s Order on Motions
`in Limine (Dkt. 113
`Court MIL No.3: Theparties shall be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any party’s overall
`
`223, 237
`
`223, 237
`
`226, 235
`
`226, 235
`
`226, 235
`
`

`

`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`226, 235
`
`The parties note one additional item that they intend to raise with the Courtat the pretrial
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 7
`
`No.
`
`PENDING MOTIONS
`
`ECF NOS.
`
`Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness maytestify to expert opinions
`outside the established parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel
`shall not raise such an objection for strategic or other non-meritorious
`
`purposes.
`Court MIL No. 6: The parties shall be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument concerning the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, inter partes review, the Smith-Leahy America Invents
`Act, or any alternative structure that does not relate directly to an
`Article ITT trial in a district court.
`Court MIL No. 9: The parties shall be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument referring to any other personorentity
`2 cc
`as “greedy,” “corrupt,”
`“evil,” or “dishonest,” or using any other
`pejorative term. The parties shall also be precluded from introducing
`evidence, testimony, or argument that characterizes any other person or
`entity’s actions as “stealing,” “copying,”
`“misappropriating,”
`“pirating,” “trespassing,” or any
`similar terms.
`
`39 <<
`conference.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5 of 7
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5of7
`
`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/_ Thomas M. Melsheimer
`Thomas M. Melsheimer
`Texas Bar No. 13922550
`tmelsheimer@winston.com
`M. Brett Johnson
`
`Texas Bar No. 00790975
`mbjohnson@winston.com
`Michael A. Bittner
`
`Texas Bar No. 24064905
`mbittner@winston.com
`C. Charles Liu
`
`Texas Bar No. 24100410
`ccliu@winston.com
`Steven R Laxton
`
`Texas Bar No. 24120639
`slaxton@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 453-6500
`
`Matthew R. McCullough
`California Bar No. 301330
`mrmecullough@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`By: /s/ Robert W._Unikel
`Robert W. Unikel (Pro Hac Vice)
`robertunikel@paulhastings.com
`John A. Cotiguala (Pro Hac Vice)
`johncotiguala@paulhastings.com
`Daniel J. Blake (Pro Hac Vice)
`danielblake@paulhastings.com
`Grayson S. Cornwell (Pro Hac Vice)
`graysoncomwell@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South WackerDrive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 499-6000
`Facsimile: (312) 499-6100
`
`Elizabeth Brann (Pro Hac Vice)
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`Ariell N. Bratton (Pro Hac Vice)
`ariellbratton@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi (Pro Hac Vice)
`robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Joshua Yin (Pro Hac Vice)
`joshuayin@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Dan L. Bagatell (Pro Hac Vice)
`dbagatell@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3 Weatherby Road
`Hanover, NH 03755
`Telephone: (602) 351-8250
`Facsimile: (602) 648-7150
`
`
`Andrew T. Dufresne (Pro Hac Vice)
`adufresne@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`33 E. Main St. Ste. 201
`Madison, WI 53703
`Telephone: (608) 663-7460
`Facsimile: (608) 663-7499
`
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`State Bar No.: 00796136
`pamstutz@scottdoug.com
`SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO,
`LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 495-6300
`Facsimile: (512) 495-6399
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Telephone: (650) 858-6500
`
`William M. Logan
`Texas Bar No. 24106214
`wlogan@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 651-2766
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`FLYPSI, INC. (D/B/A FLYP)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 255 Filed 01/19/24 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 12, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
`
`was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system and by email. Administrative Policies and
`
`Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases, Western District of Texas, Section
`
`14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert W. Unikel
`Robert W. Unikel
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`