Defendant's motion in limine to preclude evidence regarding the 5 litigation licenses involving the patents-in-suit was denied. "The five litigation licenses in this case are consistent with the [plaintiff's] other nine non-litigation licenses as all fourteen licenses have similar running royalty structures. Further, while [plaintiff] intends to identify the licenses, the licensees, the rates of the licenses, the total royalties that have been received, and the royalties received per year, it will not identify the licenses as having resulted from litigation. Thus, the danger of prejudice to [defendant] from the implication of validity and infringement by a third party willing to pay money to settle a lawsuit is eliminated."
ReedHycalog UK, Ltd. et al v. Diamond Innovations Inc., 6-08-cv-00325 (TXED August 2, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Davis, J.)