IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: -CV-00-JRG
§
, §
§
Defendant. §
§
SECOND AMENDED STANDING ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE IN CASES
INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND/OR BREACH OF
FRAND OBLIGATIONS, AS WELL AS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS
WHICH RELATE TO THE SAME
This Order is effective upon filing and supersedes any previous Order as to the same topic.
The Court imposes the following set of standard limine rulings to be applied to all parties. In
addition to these limine orders, each side 1 will be permitted to propose and argue up to, but not
more than, five (5) of each side’s own motions in limine at the Pretrial Conference. 2
I. STANDARD LIMINE ORDERS
It is ORDERED that the Parties, their witnesses, and counsel shall not raise, discuss, or
argue the following before the venire panel or the jury without prior leave of the Court:
Court MIL No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument regarding pretrial proceedings or issues including but
not limited to discovery disputes, dispositive motion practice, or
1
The term “side” as used herein shall mean all parties named as or otherwise aligned with the plaintiff or the defendant.
For example, if a case has three named defendants and an intervenor principally aligned with one or more of the named
defendants, all such entities/persons shall collectively be deemed one “side” for purposes of this Order.
2
This Order anticipates up to five (5) limine matters per side being submitted to the Court. Without leave,
the parties shall not file any additional agreed limine matters with the Court. Barring an express order of the Court,
the standard limine orders herein and up to five (5) opposed party limine motions per side shall constitute the
universe of limine orders in any case.
dropped claims or defenses.
Court MIL No. 2: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument that raises religious or political beliefs, race, ethnicity,
gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or health (including but
not limited to vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law
firm.
Court MIL No. 3: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument concerning any party’s overall financial size, wealth, or
executive compensation.
Court MIL No. 4: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument regarding prior art that is not disclosed in a specific
combination set forth in any party’s expert report or invalidity
contentions.
Court MIL No. 5: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument before the jury that relates only to equitable issues or
defenses (i.e., evidence that does not also serve another evidentiary
purpose relevant to jury issues).
Court MIL No. 6: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, inter
partes review, the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act, or any
alternative structure that does not relate directly to an Article III trial
in a district court.
Court MIL No. 7: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument suggesting that there is anything legally improper in
filing a patent application or writing patent claims to cover an adverse
party’s product.
Court MIL No. 8: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any argument,
evidence, testimony, insinuation, reference, or assertion regarding a
witness’ choice to testify in his or her native or chosen language (being
any language other than English).
Court MIL No. 9: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument referring to any other person or entity as “greedy,”
“corrupt,” “evil,” or “dishonest,” or using any other pejorative term.
The parties shall also be precluded from introducing evidence,
testimony, or argument that characterizes any other person or entity’s
actions as “stealing,” “copying,” “misappropriating,” “pirating,”
“trespassing,” or any similar terms.
Court MIL No. 10: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument bolstering or disparaging the U.S. Patent Office, its
examiners, or the process for prosecuting patent applications or
granting patents in the United States. This does not preclude factual
2
evidence as to the operations of the USPTO.
Court MIL No. 11: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument referring to any other person or entity in disparaging
ways, such as a “patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty hunter,” “bandit,”
“playing the lawsuit lottery,” “shell company,” “shakedown artist,”
“patent assertion entity,” or any such similar terms. Use of the term
“non-practicing entity” is permitted.
Court MIL No. 12: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument regarding funding of the litigation or regarding any
comment on attorney-fee compensation including amounts or
structure.
Court MIL No. 13: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument regarding either party’s other litigations or arbitrations,
including parallel proceedings in any other court, tribunal, or forum,
including ADR proceedings.
Court MIL No. 14: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument regarding the size of the parties’ law firms or the number
of attorneys representing the parties.
Court MIL No. 15: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument regarding the fact that testimony or opinions offered by
any expert may have been criticized, excluded, or found to be
unreliable in any other forum.
Court MIL No. 16: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument referring to the role or presence in the courtroom of jury
consultants or shadow jurors, or the use of focus groups or mock
proceedings to assist with trial preparation, jury selection, or trial.
Court MIL No. 17: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument relating to the Court’s Claim Construction Order other
than the Court’s actual adopted constructions, including the Court’s
reasoning or the parties’ agreements.
Court MIL No. 18: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument for purposes of infringement or non-infringement
comparing the accused product or method to the preferred
embodiments, the specification, or any non-accused product or
method.
Court MIL No. 19: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument suggesting that a verdict in one party’s favor would
impact the cost of goods or services or would have other commercial
impacts.
3
Court MIL No. 20: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument suggesting that the Eastern District of Texas is an
improper or inconvenient venue in which to try this case.
Court MIL No. 21: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument suggesting that the other party had an affirmative duty
to seek opinion of counsel, and/or any inference that may be drawn as
to what the contents of such an opinion would have been.
Court MIL No. 22: Neither party shall ask questions or make statements to invoke a
privileged or protected answer.
Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness may testify to expert opinions outside the
established parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel shall not
raise such an objection for strategic or other non-meritorious
purposes.
Court MIL No. 24: Neither party shall reference the presence or absence of any party’s
corporate representative, employee, or other witness.
Court MIL No. 25: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument suggesting that the opposing party failed to call any
witness. The parties shall also be precluded from making any mention
or statement of probable testimony of a witness who is absent,
unavailable, or will not be called or allowed to testify live or by
deposition in this case. In short, neither party shall “try the empty
chair.”
Court MIL No. 26: Neither party shall reference the presiding judicial officer in any
hearing or proceeding by name. All references to the rulings, orders,
. or policies of the Court shall only be attributed to the Court
institutionally but not to any judge or justice by name or individual
identity.
Court MIL No. 27: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony,
or argument concerning any indemnification agreement, obligation,
and/or request for indemnification.
Court MIL No. 28: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any evidence,
testimony, or argument, from any source, disparaging this Court, any
judicial officer thereof, this Division, this District, or any portion or
subdivision of the Judicial branch of the United States of America.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of December, 2025.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
