Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

February 27, 2014

PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P., Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are:

1. Personalized User Model, L.L.P.'s ("PUM") Motion to Exclude Portions of Dr. Edward Fox's Non-Infringement Report for Failure to Apply the Court's Claim Constructions (D.I. 555);
2. Google Inc.'s ("Google") Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Michael Pazzani (D.I. 552);
3. PUM's Motion in Limine to Preclude Google from Presenting Argument or Evidence that it is an Owner of the Patents-in-Suit or on other Related Legal and Equitable Issues (D.I. 588 Ex. 12);
4. PUM's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Reexamination Proceedings at Trial ( Id. at Ex. 13);
5. PUM's Motion in Limine to Preclude Google from Characterizing it as a Troll or Otherwise Presenting Derogatory Comments ( Id. at Ex. 14);
6. Google's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude Evidence or Arguments on Copying or Pre-Suit Knowledge ( Id. at Ex. 15);
7. Google's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude Evidence or Arguments Regarding Google's Revenues or Acquisition of Kaltix ( Id. at Ex. 16);
8. Google's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude Evidence Regarding the Meaning of "Conceived" ( Id. at Ex. 17); and
9. Various miscellaneous issues raised by the parties in the Proposed Pretrial Order. ( Id. at Exs. 19-20)

The Court heard oral argument on these various motions and issues during the pretrial conference on February 26, 2014. A jury trial on infringement, invalidity, and breach of contract will begin on March 10, 2014.

After reviewing the materials submitted, and having heard argument, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

Daubed Motions

A. PUM's Motion to Exclude Portions of Dr. Edward Fox's Non-Infringement Report for Failure to Apply the Court's Claim Constructions (D.I. 555)

PUM requests that the Court exclude portions of Dr. Fox's non-infringement report because he disregarded the Court's claim constructions. In particular, PUM argues that in offering his non-infringement opinion, Dr. Fox did not apply the Court's constructions of the terms (i) "specific" or "specific to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.