Motions in Limine and the judge’s order: First a little background. One of the many powerful tools available to a trial lawyer is this Motion. It is used to combat the tactic of opposing counsel to put inadmissible, highly prejudicial evidence in front of the jury. The opposing lawyers lay in wait with their most damning stuff and try and ambush you in front of the jury. Lawyers know that merely asking a question will be remembered by the jury, even if the judge rules on an objection and orders the jury to disregard. Every one knows that once the jury hears it, they will remember.
This motion gives the lawyers and the trial team the ability to sit around and brainstorm the upcoming trial and anticipate everything bad that is going to be said or come into evidence and try to keep it from the jury. Under the rules of evidence there is Rule 403, that lets the judge exclude evidence having little if any probative value and that by it’s very nature, it’s prejudicial effect, substantially outweighs it’s value to the case.
One example, might be for IDCC’s lawyers to argue that “NOK is a giant bully with billions in the bank that has been stealing American technology without payment and taking the money back to Finland and providing for their citizens and not paying any U.S. taxes, thereby robbing IDCC and good, hardworking Americans of the value of their efforts”. Even though such a statement might be true, it shouldn’t be placed in front of a jury as it adds nothing to the case except to attempt to impassion and inflame the jury and to get them to reach a decision on that passion rather than the evidence.
Another example in one of RMBS’ cases was when the defense lawyer got away with saying “if you award X billion of dollars against us, we will have to shut the doors and put 25,000 American Citizens out of work”.
Taking Limine to it’s extreme, I was once able to keep the entire testimony of all of the defendant’s witnesses out of the trial because it was all hearsay, lawyer fabricated and highly prejudicial. The witnesses were prepared to twist their testimony to protect their jobs and we knew it from their depositions. However, the judge did let them testify to their names and where they worked, but that was it. The defendant’s knew there testimony was all crap and fabricated, but they just wanted the jury to hear enough to base their votes on passion and not the real evidence.
One of the potential statements, I feared in IDCC cases is a statement indicating that IDCC only has 200 employees and that they all want to become fitly rich at the expense of NOK just because they have a couple patents. While not said at the ITC, you can almost bet it was something the ALJ’s and Commission clowns were thinking about when they screwed us on domestic industry.
Turning to specifics, the Judge is not going to allow defendant’s to call us troll, NPE, extortionist, or anything else, but will only refer to us a IDCC or Plaintiff, unless their get permission from the judge. How do they get such permission? They have to approach the bench and ask him if it’s alright to call us another dirty name”. LOL, good luck with that!!
On the negative side, the judge is not going to let us generally talk about the 1999 NOK license and that we have licensed thousands of patents for lots of money. But, if we can show a license(s) with another company on the patents at issue in the case, we can present that evidence for a different relevant purpose, such as commercial success.
The judge is also not going to allow IDCC to discuss non - merit decisions of PTO involving other defendants in other cases under Rule 403.
IMO ghors
