`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-31-ADA
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`FLYPSI, INC. (D/B/A FLYP),
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ DISPUTED PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
`
`After considering briefing and holding oral arguments on January 17, 2024, the Court
`
`hereby enters its rulings on the following disputed pre-trial motions:
`
`Plaintiff Flypsi, Inc. (d/b/a Flyp)’s Disputed Pre-Trial Motions:
`
`
`
`Flyp’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Google’s Affirmative Defenses
`
`(Dkts. 149, 181, 198) is DENIED. The Court further HOLDS that prosecution history estoppel
`
`does not preclude Flyp from asserting infringement of the asserted ’770 and ’105 patent claims
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents with respect to the “bridge telephone number” limitation.
`
`Flyp’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Infringement of the ’094, ’554,
`
`and ’585 Patents (Dkts. 150, 179, 200) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Flyp’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Concerning Burner References,
`
`Obviousness, and Google’s 35 U.S.C. § 112 Arguments (Dkts. 151, 183, 202) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Flyp’s Motion to Strike Expert Reports of Dr. Oded Gottesman, Ph.D., regarding
`
`Noninfringement and Invalidity (Dkts. 152, 173, 196) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Flyp’s Motion to Strike Expert Opinions of Chris Martinez on the Cost of Non-Infringing
`
`Alternatives (Dkts. 153, 176, 208) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 260 Filed 01/31/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Defendant Google LLC’s Disputed Pre-Trial Motions:
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkts. 108, 110, 114) is
`
`DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion to Stay Pending IPRs (Dkts. 127, 129, 131) is DENIED.
`
`Google’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of All Asserted
`
`Claims (Dkts. 142, 185, 199) is DENIED under Alice Step 1. The Court further HOLDS that all
`
`asserted claims are directed to eligible subject matter under Alice Step 1 as a matter of law.
`
`Accordingly, Google’s § 101 defense will not be tried.
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willfulness (Dkts. 143, 177, 211) is
`
`DENIED.
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’770 and ’105
`
`Patents (Dkts. 145, 172, 209) is DENIED. The Court further HOLDS that prosecution history
`
`estoppel does not preclude Flyp from asserting infringement of the asserted ’770 and ’105 patent
`
`claims under the doctrine of equivalents with respect to the “bridge telephone number” limitation.
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’094, ’554,
`
`and ’585 Patents (147, 174, 210) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`Google’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Mr. Justin Lewis related to his reliance on
`
`irrelevant advertising revenue (Dkts. 154, 178, 201) is DENIED; however, the Court ORDERS
`
`in limine that neither Flyp, its counsel, nor any witnesses shall introduce, rely upon, or make
`
`reference to the amount of Google’s total advertising revenue.
`
`Google’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Mr. Justin Lewis related to his failure to apportion
`
`(Dkts. 154, 178, 201) is DENIED.
`
`SIGNED this 31st day of January, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 260 Filed 01/31/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`\LAN D ALBRIGHT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
