Motion in Limine

Subscribe to Motion in Limine via RSS

CBOE v. ISE, No. 07 C 623, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2013) (Lefkow, J.).

Judge Lefkow granted plaintiff CBOE’s motion in limine limiting defendant ISE’s expert testimony consistent with prior rulings regarding the scope of evidence in this patent case.  The expert was allowed to testify regarding alleged infringement by CBOE’s accused …

CBOE v. ISE, No. 07 C 623, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2013) (Lefkow, J.).

Judge Lefkow granted in part CBOE’s motion in limine to limit ISE’s infringement argument at trial in this patent case.  The issue for trial was whether CBOE’s Hybrid system was “merely two independent exchanges” or an integrated system.  …

Chamberlain Group v. Lear Corp., No. 05 C 3449, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2011) (Posner, J.).
Judge Posner, sitting by designation, ordered a series of pre-trial deadlines in this garage door opener patent case. The following deadlines were of particular note:
All objections to exhibits were to be in the form of motions in limine, not one-word objections.
Exhibits were limited to what could fit into one binder per side.
The Court was to draft jury instructions and voir dire.
…
Continue Reading Parties Limited to One Binder of Trial Exhibits Per Side

Allen v. Destiny’s Child, No. 06 C 6606 (N.D. Ill.) (Holderman, C.J.).
As I reported earlier this week, plaintiff’s copyright infringement case against Destiny’s Child and its members, among others, was set for trial before Chief Judge Holderman this week. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, including the musical group Destiny’s Child and its members, infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights in his song “Cater 2 U” by producing and selling Destiny’s Child’s song of the same name (watch the video of Destiny’s Child’s version on their website). Late last week, the Sun-Times’ Natasha Korecki reported (click here for the story) that the parties settled the case at the courthouse steps. A dismissal has not been filed yet, but it appears that the case is likely settled. I will post about some of the more interesting motion in limine rulings in the next week or two, as well as about any settlement-related orders that may issue.
* Click here for more on this case in the Blog’s archives.
…
Continue Reading Destiny’s Child & Beyonce Settle Cater 2 U Copyright Dispute

Allen v. Destiny’s Child, No. 06 C 6606, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill.) (Holderman, C.J.).
Plaintiff’s copyright infringement case against Destiny’s Child and its members, among others, is set for trial before Chief Judge Holderman on December 8, 2009. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, including the musical group Destiny’s Child and its members, infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights in his song “Cater 2 U” by producing and selling Destiny’s Child’s song of the same name (watch the video of Destiny’s Child’s version on their website). For more on this case, click here for the Blog’s archives and here for a story by Natasha Korecki, the Sun-Times’ federal court reporter. I will post about some of the more interesting motion in limine rulings in the next week or two.
…
Continue Reading Destiny’s Child & Beyonce in Upcoming Copyright Trial

Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., No. 98 C 2361, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2008) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel ruled upon various motions in limine. Of particular interest, the Court denied defendants motion for reconsideration of the Court’s grant of summary judgment of infringement. The Court held that the evidence defendant used to create a material question of fact was inadmissible. And while the motion could be construed to include new arguments, they were too late to overcome summary judgment.
The Court also granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendant’s evidence of noninfringing alternatives because plaintiff was only seeking a reasonable royalty, not lost profits. Finally, the Court denied defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of defendant’s vehicle sales as evidence of commercial excess. While it is unlikely that anyone purchased a vehicle because of the infringing puddle lamp, the fact that defendant used the lamps in its vehicles and sold a “fair number” is evidence of commercial success.
…
Continue Reading Product Sales Including Infringing Product is Evidence of Commercial Success

RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04 C 3944, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2007) (Coar, J.).*
Judge Coar denied the parties’ damages motions in limine.* First, the Court held that defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”) could have its damages expert Catherine Lawton testify regarding her analysis of a hypothetical September 2001 negotiation between the parties. Plaintiff RRK Holding (“RRK”) argued that the misappropriation began in March 2000, not when Sears began selling its product in September 2001. As a result, Sears contended that Lawton’s September 2001 hypothetical negotiation should not be allowed into evidence. But the Court held that the timing of the misappropriation was a question of fact for the jury and, therefore, allowed Lawton’s testimony.
Second, the Court held that Sears could introduce the 2003 sale of some of RRK’s assets for $17M as part of Sears’s damages case. The Court held that the value of the sale was relevant to RRK’s alleged injury based upon the alleged misappropriation.
Third, the Court held that RRK could introduce damages calculations including periods beyond the “head start” period (the time it would have taken for Sears to reverse engineer RRK’s combination tool). The head start period was disputed, preventing the Court from fixing a time for the period, and any alleged harm would be resolved by a jury instruction explaining how the jury should calculate damages relative to the head start period.
Finally, the Court denied RRK’s motion for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. RRK argued that Sears’s March 2007 production, two years after fact discovery closed, of documents dated 1999 was “unreasonable and vexatious” and should be sanctioned. But the Court held that Sears’s explanation that the documents were found when it replaced its litigation counsel and new counsel ran additional searches rendered the delay “negligen[t] and reckless[],” but not in bad faith. The Court, therefore, did not impose sanctions.
* Click here for a copy of the opinion and click here for more about this case in the Blog’s archives.
…
Continue Reading “Negligence and Recklessness” Does Not Warrant Discovery Sanctions