Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,, No. 4:18-cv-00474 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Dkt. #735). Having considered the relevant pleadings and argument at the pretrial hearing on August 13, 2020, the Court rules on the motions in limine as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine #7: DENIED. Evidence of non-infringing alternatives is relevant for reasonable royalty calculation s, specifically for demonstrating the parties’ relative bargaining positions. In re Ecast, Inc., 96 F. App’ x 710, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . Non-infringing uses are relevant for contributory infringement.