Judge Schofield recently resolved several motions in limine brought by Plaintiff Kewazinga Corporation in a patent infringement lawsuit against Google. Among the most notable rulings was her denial of a motion in limine regarding the Star Trek: The Next Generation Interactive Technical Manual (the “Star Trek Manual”). See Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC, No. 20 Civ. 1106 (LGS), 2024 WL 4144010, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2024).
Kewazinga sued Google in 2020, alleging that Google’s “Street View” feature infringes three of Kewazinga’s patents claiming “telepresence methods and systems that allow multiple users to navigate displays of an environment simultaneously and independently.” Order on Mot. for Summ. J. at 2, ECF No. 323. Google’s “Street View” product captures photos from locations worldwide and “processes them into panoramas” to be viewed online. Id.
In October 2023, Kewazinga moved to preclude Google from relying on the Star Trek Manual, a CD-ROM product, as evidence of the functionality of prior art called the “QuickTime VR System” (“QTVR”). ECF No. 349. Kewazinga argued that Google had not mentioned the Star Trek Manual in its Invalidity Contentions or Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, and that the Star Trek Manual would be “far more prejudicial than probative.” Kewazinga Mot. at 4–5, ECF No. 349. Google responded that it had disclosed the QTVR in its Invalidity Contentions, and that it was entitled to introduce the Star Trek Manual into evidence to demonstrate the functionality of the QTVR. Google Opp’n at 2–3, ECF No. 415. Google also asserted that it had given Kewazinga “ample notice” of its intended use of the Star Trek Manual during discovery. Id.
The court denied Kewazinga’s motion, holding that Google was “entitled to demonstrate the functionality of the systems it disclosed in its invalidity contentions,” and that Google had “identified evidence from discovery to show the functionality of the [QTVR] system using the Star Trek Manual product.” Kewazinga, 2024 WL 4144010, at *1. Judge Schofield noted, however, that “[w]hether to credit that evidence is a question reserved for the jury.” Id.
