Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Google Inc. v. Beneficial Innovations, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

January 20, 2014

GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff,
v.
BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, INC., Defendants.

ORDER

RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.

Before the Court is both Beneficial Innovations' Objections to, and Motion for Reconsideration of, the January 10, 2014 Order Re Admissibility of Exhibits at Trial (Dkt. No. 499, filed January 19, 2014) and Google Inc.'s Response to Plaintiff's Objections to, and Motion for Reconsideration of, the January 10, 2014 Order Re Admissibility of Exhibits at Trial (Dkt. No. 500, filed January 20, 2014.)

APPLICABLE LAW

This Court reviews timely motions for reconsideration of the nondispostive rulings of the magistrate judge to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See F.R.C.P. § 72(a); Local Rule CV-72(b).

FRE 402 provides that:

Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:
• the United States Constitution;
• a federal statute;
• these rules; or
• other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.

FRE 403 provides that:

The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

DISCUSSION

On the eve of trial, Beneficial Innovations, Inc. ("Beneficial") seeks reconsideration of part of Magistrate Judge Payne's ruling (Dkt. No. 487), which overruled Beneficial's objections, on the admissibility of five exhibits: Exhs. 8 and 9 (Beneficial's infringement and supplemental infringement contentions in this action) and Exhs. 2-4 (Beneficial's original, first amended, and second amended complaints in this action). (Mtn. at 1). As a result, these exhibits were preadmitted in advance of trial. Beneficial asserts that the documents "do not constitute evidence of infringement, " "are wholly irrelevant to any issue to be decided in the case" and "[a]t the very least, the documents should be excluded under FRE 403." ( Id. ) In the final paragraph of its motion, Beneficial also argues that the documents ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.