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
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 85-2 Filed 04/13/16 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`GEORGE A. RILEY (S.B. #118304)
`griley@omm.com
`LUANN L. SIMMONS (S.B. #203526)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`MELODY DRUMMOND HANSEN (S.B. #278786)
`mdrummondhansen@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Telephone:
`(415) 984-8700
`Facsimile:
`(415) 984-8701
`
`RYAN K. YAGURA (S.B. #197619)
`ryagura@omm.com
`XIN-YI ZHOU (S.B. #251969)
`vzhou@omm.com
`BRIAN M. COOK (S.B. #266181)
`bcook@omm.com
`KEVIN MURRAY (S.B. #275186)
`kmurray2@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`Telephone:
`(213) 430-6000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 430-6407
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE
`
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision, SA, and Nagra
`France S.A.S.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Case No. 5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY
`DRUMMOND HANSEN IN SUPPORT
`OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
`PRECLUDE RELIANCE ON CERTAIN
`INVENTION DATES AND TO STRIKE
`CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS
`
`v.
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`i
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY
`DRUMMOND HANSEN
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 85-2 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`I am an attorney admitted to practice in the Northern District of California. I represent
`
`Defendant Apple, Inc. in the above captioned matter. This declaration is accurate to the best of
`
`my knowledge. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated below. I am of sound mind and
`
`capable of testifying to the facts below.
`1.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ October 15,
`
`2015 “DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,148,081, 6,233,736, 7,055,169, 7,644,429, AND
`
`7,725,740.” For the convenience of the Court, I highlighted some of the relevant passages.
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of “PLAINTIFFS’
`
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)” which Plaintiffs sent to Defendant on December 23, 2015,
`
`in response to the interrogatories that Defendant sent to Plaintiffs on November 23, 2015. For the
`
`convenience of the Court, I deleted irrelevant pages, whited out irrelevant portions on relevant
`
`pages, and highlighted some of the relevant passages.
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of “DEFENDANT APPLE
`
`INC.’S PATENT L.R. 3-3 PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS” which were served
`
`on Plaintiffs on December 7, 2015. For the convenience of the Court, I removed irrelevant pages,
`
`whited out irrelevant passages on relevant pages, and highlighted prior art disclosures that would
`
`be possibly be predated if Plaintiffs were allowed to change their invention dates.
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a letter sent by
`
`Defendant to Plaintiffs on February 2, 2016.
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of an email chain between
`
`counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant in this action, the most recent email being dated
`
`February 26, 2016. I highlighted the relevant portion.
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Defendants
`
`to Plaintiffs sent on March 4, 2016. I highlighted some of the relevant portions. The letter
`
`memorializes a meet and confer held on February 11, 2016 regarding Plaintiffs’ invention dates.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY
`DRUMMOND HANSEN
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 85-2 Filed 04/13/16 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an email chain between
`
`counsel for Defendants and counsel for Plaintiffs, with the most recent email being dated March
`
`14, 2016. I highlighted one of the relevant portions.
`8.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of “PLAINTIFFS’
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 8 and 13)” which was served in this action on
`
`March 22, 2016. For the convenience of the Court, I deleted irrelevant pages, whited out
`
`irrelevant portions on relevant pages, and highlighted some of the relevant passages.
`9.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an order issued in
`
`Harvatek Corp. v. Cree, Inc., Case No. 14-5353, Dkt. 50 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2015).
`10.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of “PLAINTIFFS’
`
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`
`REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS (NOS. 1-153)”
`
`served in this action on December 23, 2015, in response to requests for production that Defendant
`
`served on Plaintiffs on November 23, 2015. For the convenience of the Court, I deleted irrelevant
`
`pages, whited out irrelevant portions on relevant pages, and highlighted some of the relevant
`
`passages.
`11.
`
`15, 2015.
`12.
`
`In this action, Plaintiffs produced the file history for the ’736 Patent on October
`
`In order to formulate its invalidity defenses, Apple has searched for and evaluated
`
`a large body of prior art, including prior art dated after OpenTV’s new priority dates. The
`
`majority of the work required to evaluate possible prior art stems from the fact that many of the
`
`terms used in the asserted claims are ambiguous. Apple’s agreed and disputed constructions are,
`
`in part, oriented toward clarifying whether the scope of the asserted claims extends to what is
`
`disclosed by the prior art. If certain of Apple’s prior art are no longer relevant to this action
`
`(because they are predated by the asserted patents), then Apple will have wasted considerable
`
`time and effort. And if certain key prior art is no longer available, Apple may have to
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY
`DRUMMOND HANSEN
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 85-2 Filed 04/13/16 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Melody Drummond Hansen
`Melody Drummond Hansen
`State Bar No. 278786
`
` Attorney for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`3
`
`DECLARATION OF MELODY
`DRUMMOND HANSEN
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD
`
`significantly revise its invalidity defenses.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 13, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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