Grace v. Apple, Inc.

Background

The court ruled on three motions in limine filed by Apple, Inc. and three filed by the plaintiffs. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. The court applied Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403, including the balancing of probative value against risks such as unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, delay, and wasted time.

Apple’s Motions

1. Prior patent lawsuits and verdicts — GRANTED. Apple sought to exclude all evidence and testimony about prior patent-infringement lawsuits and verdicts against Apple. The plaintiffs identified an earlier lawsuit involving VirnetX as background for their allegations that Apple broke FaceTime for users of iOS 6 and earlier operating systems. The court found that this evidence had minimal probative value and could create a time-consuming side trial about complex patent proceedings, confuse or mislead the jury, and cause unfair prejudice. The court therefore granted Apple’s request to exclude all such evidence and testimony. The plaintiffs may instead argue that Apple allegedly “broke” FaceTime to reduce its patent royalty payments.

2. FaceTime advertising and marketing — DENIED. Apple sought to exclude evidence and argument about its FaceTime advertising and marketing. The court found that the advertising could be relevant to whether Apple impaired the condition, quality, or value of the plaintiffs’ iPhones, an issue relevant to their trespass-to-chattels theory. The advertising could also support the plaintiffs’ theory that the phones’ resale value declined because FaceTime was important to the product. The court rejected Apple’s concerns that the evidence would improperly introduce a false-advertising claim or unfairly inflame the jury. Apple could object later if the evidence was offered for an improper purpose.

3. Apple’s wealth, financial resources, and profits — DENIED. Apple sought to exclude this evidence as irrelevant and prejudicial. The court found it relevant because the plaintiffs sought punitive damages. Under California law, a defendant’s wealth may be considered in determining the appropriate level of punitive damages. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs had enough evidence to obtain punitive damages, explaining that a motion in limine was not the proper way to resolve that issue or weigh the evidence. The parties were ordered to jointly propose a limiting instruction concerning the evidence by January 24, 2020.

Plaintiffs’ Motions

1. Alleged motivations or integrity of plaintiffs’ counsel — GRANTED. Apple did not oppose this motion and stated that it did not intend to attack class counsel’s integrity, conduct, or credibility. The court found that evidence or argument about counsel’s motivations was irrelevant to the merits and granted the motion.

2. Caldwell Cassady & Curry’s representation of VirnetX — GRANTED. Because the court excluded evidence and testimony about the prior patent lawsuits and verdicts, it also excluded evidence and testimony about Caldwell Cassady & Curry’s role in those lawsuits. Apple did not oppose the motion after the court granted Apple’s first motion.

3. Ability to seek attorney fees and costs — GRANTED. The plaintiffs sought to exclude evidence, argument, or testimony about their ability, or their counsel’s ability, to seek attorney fees and costs. The court found that fee issues had no place before the jury and granted the motion. The court also stated that Apple’s argument that the plaintiffs had no serious claim for such an award was a substantive argument not properly resolved through a motion in limine.

Consequences

The court warned that violating any of the motion-in-limine rulings could result in a reprimand in front of the jury, sanctions, or other consequences. The order addressed trial evidence and arguments rather than resolving the underlying claims.