Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC

Background

Google filed five motions in limine, which are requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. The court resolved each motion under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Rulings on the Motions

Motion in Limine No. 1

Google’s motion to preclude Kewazinga from offering evidence, argument, discussion, or opinions about Google’s acquisitions was denied. The court found that the fact and nature of the acquisitions were relevant to Kewazinga’s damages case. The ruling was subject to Kewazinga’s agreement not to introduce evidence about the prices of the acquisitions and not to use “monopoly,” “monopolist,” or similar derogatory terms to characterize Google’s business.

Motion in Limine No. 2

Google’s motion to preclude evidence, argument, discussion, or opinions about pretrial proceedings and issues—including discovery, discovery disputes, claim construction, and dispositive-motion practice—was granted. The court found that those matters had little, if any, value in helping the jury decide the case and could confuse the jury. Kewazinga could explain that its damages methodology relied on the financial information available, but could not criticize the pretrial proceedings. The jury would be instructed to apply the court’s claim constructions.

Motion in Limine No. 3

The motion was resolved in two parts:

- Google’s motion to preclude evidence, argument, discussion, or opinions about its size, wealth, or overall revenue was granted under Evidence Rule 403 because the court found the information had little, if any, value and created a risk of unfair prejudice concerning both liability and damages. - Google’s motion to preclude Ms. Riley from affirmatively relying on or testifying about Google’s search-advertising revenue, or using that revenue as a “reasonableness check,” was denied without prejudice to renewal after the court decided Google’s renewed challenge to Ms. Riley’s supplemental expert opinion. “Without prejudice to renewal” means the issue could be raised again as described in the order.

Motion in Limine No. 4

Google’s motion to exclude testimony, argument, or references to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denials of institution of inter partes review petitions was granted. The court found that those denials had limited, if any, value because the Board did not and could not address the system prior art on which Google relied for invalidity. The court also found a substantial risk that the decisions would confuse, distract, or mislead the jury. The ruling did not bar references to statements made by the parties before the Board.

Motion in Limine No. 5

Google’s request to preclude evidence or argument suggesting that it willfully infringed the asserted patents was denied because the request was procedurally improper and, in substance, an untimely motion for summary judgment. Google’s request to preclude evidence or argument suggesting that it copied or stole Kewazinga’s technology was also denied, except that Kewazinga could not explicitly state that Google “copied” or “stole” the technology. The opinion states that Kewazinga did not oppose that limitation.

Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to enter the five rulings as the summary disposition of the motions and to close the motions at Docket Nos. 341, 342, 343, 344, and 345. This was an evidentiary and pretrial order; it did not decide the underlying patent claims.