Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC

Full title: FLYPSI, INC. D/B/A FLYP, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Waco Division

Date published: Jan 31, 2024

Civil Action 6:22-cv-31-ADA (W.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2024)

Opinion

Civil Action 6:22-cv-31-ADA

01-31-2024

FLYPSI, INC. D/B/A FLYP, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

OMNIBUS ORDER ON THE PARTIES' DISPUTED MOTIONS IN LIMINE

After considering briefing and holding oral arguments on January 17, 2024, the Court hereby enters its rulings on the following disputed Motions in Limine:

Plaintiff Flypsi, Inc. (d/b/a Flyp)'s disputed Motions in Limine (Dkts. 223, 237):

• Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence regarding inventorship or specific contributions of each inventor to the Patents-in-Suit is DENIED.

• Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 4 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence that Flyp has the burden to establish the changes in Google Voice is DENIED. Google stipulates that it will not suggest to the jury that Flyp has the burden of proof on Google's affirmative defense of prior use; however, Google shall be permitted to elicit testimony and argue that Flyp cannot identify changes to Google Voice during one or more particular time periods.

• Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 8 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence regarding the familial or personal relationships of Flyp employees or agents, or any potential witness is GRANTED.

• Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 10 seeking to preclude any argument or evidence regarding the circumstances of inventor Sunir Kochhar's termination from Flyp is GRANTED to the extent it is offered as character evidence regarding Mr. Peter Rinfret.

Defendant Google LLC's disputed Motions in Limine (Dkts. 226, 235):

• Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 1 seeking to preclude any evidence, testimony, or argument regarding undisclosed facts underlying the Dialpad Agreement as to which Flyp invoked privilege is DENIED.

• Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3 seeking to preclude any evidence, testimony, or argument regarding the November 2015 meeting is GRANTED.

• Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4 seeking to preclude any evidence, testimony, or argument suggesting that Google Voice was considered by the U.S. Patent Office in connection with the Asserted Patents is DENIED.