Liveperson, Inc. v. [24]7.ai, Inc.

Background

The court issued this order after a pretrial conference to decide certain motions in limine and disputed jury instructions. A motion in limine is a request to limit evidence or arguments presented at trial.

Rulings on Motions in Limine

- LivePerson’s Motion in Limine No. 1: The court granted the motion. It barred argument, evidence, or testimony that LivePerson’s rules present in [24]7’s system were deactivated. The court found that [24]7 had failed to disclose its contention that it deactivated the rules, despite an obligation to do so. The court distinguished removing rules from software from deactivating them, because a deactivated rule may remain in the software.

- [24]7’s Motion in Limine No. 3: The court denied the motion. The motion sought to exclude arguments about [24]7’s alleged use of LivePerson’s trade secrets beyond chat implementations at specific customers. The court held that the extent to which any alleged misappropriation helped [24]7 build its chat platform was for the jury to decide. It stated that motions in limine are not an appropriate way to resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence.

- [24]7’s Motion in Limine No. 4: The court denied the motion. The motion sought to exclude evidence and arguments concerning [24]7’s failure to use a clean room. The court found that evidence relevant because testimony would address whether not using a clean room was commercially reasonable and because the absence of a clean room could make trade-secret misappropriation more likely. The court also found no unfair prejudice to [24]7.

Jury Instructions

For Special Jury Instruction No. 1, the court said it would include LivePerson’s proposed phrase, “where the components of the combination are publicly known.” The court would not include, for now, either of two additional proposed sentences: one offered by LivePerson concerning using access provided for one purpose to accomplish a different purpose, and one offered by [24]7 concerning exceeding authorized access by misrepresenting the nature of the use. Either party could ask for its proposed sentence, or an alternative, at the end of trial if the request was made sufficiently in advance and supported with written authority.

The court also stated that it would not include either party’s proposed language concerning punitive damages.

Disposition and Effect

The order granted one motion in limine, denied two motions in limine, and made interim decisions about the disputed jury instructions. It did not determine the ultimate merits of the alleged trade-secret claims.