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

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

First american CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc. et al, No. 2:10-cv-00132 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2012)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:10-cv-00132, Dkt. No. 428
Decided
September 23, 2012
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J. — Marshall
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
ORDER denying in part 347 CoreLogic's Motions in Limine Nos. 4, 5 and 6; granting in part and denying in part 349 Defendants' Motions in Limine Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

CORELOGIC INFORMATION §

SOLUTIONS, INC. §

§

Case No. 2:10-CV-132-RSP

v. § § FISERV, INC., et al. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff CoreLogic Information Solutions, Inc.’s Motions in Limine (Dkt No. 347, filed August 20, 2012) and Defendants’ Motions in Limine (Dkt. No. 349, filed August 20, 2012). The Court heard argument on several of the motions during the pretrial hearing held on September 6, 2012. See Pretrial Hr’g Tr., Dkt. No. 404. On September 20, 2012, the Court issued a ruling on a number of the motions. See Dkt. No. 411. This order addresses the remaining motions.

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.

CoreLogic’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Evidence that CoreLogic Licenses Data to DataQuick) is DENIED.

CoreLogic’s Motion in Limine No. 5 (Evidence that Non-Infringing Alternatives Exist) is DENIED.

CoreLogic’s Motion in Limine No. 6 (Evidence that CoreLogic Has Not Accused Other Products of Infringement) is DENIED.

2Interthinx’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Exclude Evidence of the Entire Market Value of the FraudGUARD Product) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED: No reference shall be made to the unapportioned revenue or profit earned from the sales of accused products.

Interthinx’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Preclude CoreLogic From Introducing Evidence That FraudGUARD Competes With CoreLogic’s AVMs) is DENIED.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 (Exclude Evidence Based on Court’s Ruling Patent Marking Motion) is DENIED.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 (Preclude Evidence on the Absence of Non-Infringing Alternatives) is DENIED.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 81 (Preclude Evidence Excusing Evidence of Delay) is GRANTED: Laches is an equitable issue that will be tried to the bench after the jury trial.

Footnotes

  1. 1 Defendants did not file a Motion in Limine No. 7.

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

First american CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc. et al, No. 2:10-cv-00132 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2012).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_10-cv-00132-6
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_10-cv-00132-6

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.