Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Omron Corporation, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________)

Hypercom Corporation,

No. CV 04-0400-PHX-PGR ORDER

Pursuant to the Court's oral rulings during the May 22, 2007 hearing, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Any Evidence of Damages (Doc. 163) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Compromise (Doc. 164) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Bar Testimony by Hypercom's Expert Laurence Pretty (Doc. 165) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Inconsistent with Hypercom's Prior Testimony (Doc. 166) is Under Advisement. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Prevent Hypercom from Re-litigating Claims Against Omron (Doc. 167) is Under Advisement. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Punitive Damages (Doc. 169) is DENIED.
Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 219 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Post-Filing Conduct (Doc. 170) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence from the ITC Administrative Action (Doc. 171) is Under Advisement. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence from Prior Hypercom/Verve Action (Doc. 172) is Under Advisement. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Prevent Hypercom from Pursuing Recovery of Attorneys' fees for Pursuit of Claims Against Omron and Counterclaims in other Actions (Doc. 173) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence Related to Alleged Dual Representation of Omron Corporation and Verve LLC (Doc. 174) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Exclude any Evidence Related to "Referral Fee" Between Hypercom and DTK Technologies, LLC. (Doc. 175) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Charles Berman or Alternatively Request for Daubert Hearing (Doc. 177) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff Hypercom's Motion in Limine Regarding Omron Corporation's Expert Witness Brad Gulko and His Report; or in the Alternative, Request for Daubert Hearing (Doc. 168) is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude James Dunlop Testimony and video or in the alternative, request for Daubert Hearing (Doc. 178) is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Claim Construction Order from Northern District of California (Doc. 179) is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant Omron's Motion for Leave to Designate Potential Non-Parties at Fault (Doc. 161) is DENIED.

- 2 Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 219 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A ruling regarding the submitted motions in limine still under advisement shall be forthcoming. DATED this 23rd day of May, 2007.

- 3 Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 219 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 3 of 3