Patent Damages
21Feb/18Off

EDVA refuses to strike evidence of prior negotiations and cross-licensing

The Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie Brinkema presiding, in Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., Civil Action 1:10-cv-910 (LMB/JFA) (E.D.VA. Feb. 14, 2018) denied Amdocs’s motions in limine.  The court denied both motions, finding the negotiation and cross-licensing evidence does not violate any rules of evidence and may be useful to the jury in determining a potential royalty.

Amdocs asked the Court to preclude Openet “from introducing any evidence or argument regarding Amdocs’ negotiations and cross-licensing with Microsoft,” and “to strike the portion of the report of Dr. Keith R. Ugone, Openet’s damages expert, which relies on Amdocs’ negotiations and cross-licensing with Microsoft.”  Opinion at 1.  Amdocs argues the motions in limine should be granted because the evidence is barred under Federal Rule of Evidence 408; and if not excluded under 408, the evidence is not relevant “because the facts surrounding the Microsoft negotiations and cross-licensing are too dissimilar from the facts in this civil action and such evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Amdocs.”   Id.

Openet argued that the “Georgia-Pacific factors analysis properly includes evidence of prior valuations of the patents at issue and prior efforts to license those patents, as well as any licensing agreements the patent holder may have entered concerning those patents.”  Id. 

The Court denied both motions, holding that the “evidence does not violate any evidentiary rules … and may help the jury evaluate what, if any, royalty may be appropriate[.]”  Id. at 2.  “Although Amdocs has pointed to facts they argue differentiate the Microsoft negotiations and cross-linking from the facts in this ligation, such factual disputes are what the tier of facts are expected to resolve at trial.”  Id.

Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Trackbacks are disabled.