Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd et al, No. 2:09-cv-00242 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2012)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:09-cv-00242, Dkt. No. 363
Decided
June 28, 2012
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER - before the court are Plaintiff Ambato Media LLC Motion in Limine 334 and Dft Garmin International Inc. Motion in Limine 333. Motions are granted in part, denied in part
Length
3 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

AMBATO MEDIA, LLC, §

Plaintiff, § § v. §

Case No. 2:09-CV-242-JRG

§ CLARION CO., LTD., et al. § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff Ambato Media, LLC’s (“Ambato”) Motions in Limine (Dkt No. 334) and Defendant Garmin International, Inc.’s (“Garmin”) Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 333). The Court heard argument on several of the motions during the pretrial hearing held on June 20, 2012. Any clarification and/or modification to such motions, as stated by the Court during such hearing, fully applies to the motions in limine rulings as stated below, and such rulings do not exclude all clarifications and/or modifications as stated in the record pursuant to the hearing transcript.

The Court’s ruling on a motion in limine is not a definitive ruling on the admissibility of evidence. An order granting a motion in limine is an order to approach the bench and seek leave from the Court prior to presenting the evidence covered by the order to the jury. Similarly, an order denying a motion in limine does not relieve a party from making an objection at trial.

Ambato’s Motions in Limine

1. Agreed

2. Agreed

3. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

4. Agreed

25. Granted

6. Carried

7. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

8. Agreed

9. Carried

10. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

11. Agreed

12. Denied

13. Agreed

14. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

15. Agreed

16. Agreed

17. Granted

18. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

19. Granted

20. Carried

21. Carried

22. Denied

23. Denied

24. Carried

25. Agreed

26. Agreed

27. Agreed

328. Agreed

29. Agreed

30. Agreed

Garmin’s Motions in Limine

1. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

2. Agreed

3. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

4. Denied

5. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

6. Agreed

7. Carried

8. Carried

9. Granted

10. Agreed

11. Granted-in-part, denied-in-part

12. Carried

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd et al, No. 2:09-cv-00242 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2012).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00242-2
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_09-cv-00242-2

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.