Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13069 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`JOHN ALLCOCK (Bar No. 98895)
`john.allcock@dlapiper.com
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM (Bar No. 174931)
`sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
`ERIN GIBSON (Bar No. 229305)
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`ROBERT WILLIAMS (Bar No. 246990)
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`TIFFANY MILLER (Bar No. 246987)
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, California 92101-4297
`Tel: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`
`ROBERT BUERGI (Bar No. 242910)
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`AMY WALTERS (Bar No. 286022)
`amy.walters@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Tel: 650.833.2000
`Fax: 650.833.2001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`MARK C. SCARSI (Bar No.
`183926)
`mscarsi@milbank.com
`ASHLEE N. LIN (Bar No.
`275267)
`anlin@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`MCCLOY LLP
`2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 424.386.4000
`Fax: 213.629.5063
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. GASPAR
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`cgaspar@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY
`& MCCLOY LLP
`28 Liberty Street
`New York, NY 10005
`Tel: 212.530.5000
`Fax: 212.822.5019
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WI-LAN, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`AND RELATED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`(lead case);
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM
`(consolidated)
`
`APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO WI-
`LAN INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CERTAIN INVALIDITY EXPERT
`OPINIONS [DOCKET NUMBER 304]
`
`April 27, 2018
`Date:
`1:30 p.m.
`Time:
`13A
`Dept.:
` Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Judge:
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13070 Page 2 of 17
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`
`II. APPLE DISCLOSED EACH OF THE CHALLENGED
`INVALIDITY THEORIES IN ITS ORIGINAL INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS. ............................................................................................ 1
`A. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Ericsson And Ericsson IP
`Traffic In Its Original Invalidity Contentions. ...................................... 2
`B. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Ericsson and Klayman In
`Its Original Invalidity Contentions. ...................................................... 3
`C. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Doshi And Calvignac In
`Its Original Invalidity Contentions. ...................................................... 6
`D. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Chuah And Sau In Its
`Original Contentions. ............................................................................ 7
`Apple Disclosed Its Section 112 Defense Based On The Claim
`Limitation “Establish a Length…” In Its Original Invalidity
`Contentions. .......................................................................................... 7
`Apple’s Experts Are Entitled To Rely On Background Prior Art,
`Which Is Not Being Offered To Prove Invalidity. ............................... 8
`III. THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER AND GRANT APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE CONSIDERING
`WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE. ............................................................. 10
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 12
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13071 Page 3 of 17
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES
`
`ASUS Comput. Int’l v. Round Rock Research, LLC,
`No. 12-cv-02099, 2014 WL 1463609 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014) ................... 9, 10
`
`Avago Techs. Gen. IP PTE Ltd. v. Elan Microelectronics Corp,
`No. 4-cv-05385, 2007 WL 951818 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2007) ............................. 4
`
`Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. River’s Edge Pharms., LLC,
`No. 1:11-cv-1634, 2015 WL 11142427 (N.D. Ga. May 21, 2015) ................... 5, 6
`
`Charleston Med. Therapeutics, Inc. v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP,
`No. 2:13-CV-2078-RMG, 2015 WL 10913613 (D.S.C. Apr. 16,
`2015) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-01971-CW, 2014 WL 4090550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,
`2014) ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`No. 2:15-cv-00037, 2017 WL 2651618 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2017)................ 3, 10
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05805-HSG, 2016 WL 612907 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) .................. 2
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834 (N.D. Cal. May 24,
`2016) ................................................................................................................ 8, 10
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-CV-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 757575 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20,
`2015) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Ixys Corp. v. Advanced Power Tech. Inc.,
`321 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2004)................................................................. 8
`
`O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 8
`
`School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc.,
`5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................. 11
`-ii-
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13072 Page 4 of 17
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
`333 U.S. 364 (1948) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Page
`
`Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-00865, 2014 WL 4100638 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014) .................. 9, 10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`P.L.R. 3.3 ........................................................................................................ 3, 4, 6, 7
`
`P.L.R. 3.6.b.2 ............................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13073 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should not prevent Apple’s experts from relying on prior art
`
`references and invalidity theories that were properly disclosed in Apple’s initial
`
`invalidity contentions and not subject to the Court’s order striking Apple’s
`
`amended invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 297, hereafter the “Order”). Apple
`
`already has moved for reconsideration and clarification of that Order (Dkt. No.
`
`306), which the Court should consider (and grant) before ruling on Wi-LAN’s
`
`duplicative motion. As demonstrated in Apple’s motion for reconsideration and
`
`below, Apple’s original invalidity contentions disclosed all of the invalidity
`
`theories challenged in Wi-LAN’s motion.
`
`In addition, Apple’s experts should be permitted to rely on the UMTS and
`
`Carvalho references, which were not at issue in Wi-LAN’s opening brief but are at
`
`issue in Apple’s co-pending motion for partial reconsideration and clarification.
`
`Apple served its UMTS and Carvalho contentions on the 50-day “hard and fast”
`
`deadline under the Patent Local Rules, and both new claim charts were necessitated
`
`by the claim construction order, as demonstrated in Apple’s co-pending motion.
`
`Therefore, Apple’s experts’ reliance on these references is proper under the Court’s
`
`reasoning in its recent opinion in In re: Ameranth Cases (Dkt. No. 306-3, hereafter
`
`“Ameranth Order”) that the 50-day deadline is a “hard and fast” deadline for
`
`amendments necessitated by the Court’s claim construction order.
`
`II. APPLE DISCLOSED EACH OF THE CHALLENGED INVALIDITY
`THEORIES IN ITS ORIGINAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS.
`
`The Court should deny Wi-LAN’s motion because Apple disclosed each of
`
`the challenged invalidity theories in June 2017 in its original invalidity contentions.
`
`Dkt. No. 306-1; see also Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 12-CV-
`
`03587-WHO, 2015 WL 757575, at *28-32 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) (threshold
`
`question in determining whether expert reports are properly within the scope of
`
`contentions is “whether the expert has permissibly specified the application of a
`
`-1-
`WEST\280982264.1
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13074 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`disclosed theory or impermissibly substituted a new theory altogether”). The fact
`
`that Apple’s amended invalidity contentions may have elaborated on some of those
`
`theories does not preclude Apple’s experts from offering opinions on theories
`
`disclosed in Apple’s original invalidity contentions. Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint,
`
`Inc., No. 13-cv-05805-HSG, 2016 WL 612907, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (the
`
`scope of invalidity contentions and expert reports are not “coextensive”); Fujifilm
`
`Corp., 2015 WL 757575, at *28-29 (alleged infringer not required in contentions to
`
`“spell out in exact detail every particular combination it intends to assert”).
`
`A. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Ericsson And Ericsson IP
`Traffic In Its Original Invalidity Contentions.
`
`The Court should decline to strike portions of Dr. Fuja’s report discussing the
`
`12
`
`combination of two papers by Nilo C. Ericsson, which the parties refer to as
`
`13
`
`“Ericsson” and “Ericsson IP Traffic,” because Apple disclosed this combination in
`
`14
`
`its June 2017 original invalidity contentions. Dkt. No. 306-1 at 7-9. Ericsson and
`
`15
`
`Ericsson IP Traffic are both five-page papers published by the same author, Nilo C.
`
`16
`
`Ericsson, within months of one another in 1999. See Dkt. No. 296-5, Ex. X, pp.
`
`17
`
`903-907; Dkt. No. 296-5, Ex. Y, pp. 908-12. Apple clearly indicated its intent to
`
`18
`
`rely on these references together by citing extensively to both papers in a single
`
`19
`
`claim chart in its original invalidity contentions (Ericsson is highlighted in yellow
`
`20
`
`and Ericsson IP Traffic is highlighted in green):
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13075 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Dkt. No. 296-4, Ex. I, pp. 398-99 (emphasis added). Moreover, Apple produced
`
`both papers to Wi-LAN pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3.3 on the same day Apple
`
`served its original invalidity contentions. Dkt. No. 305-4. Apple did not include a
`
`separate title of the Ericsson IP Traffic paper, and referred to both papers as
`
`“Ericsson” papers, because they were both written by the same author. The pin cite
`
`references to particular pages (page 2669 versus page 851, for example) from each
`
`article further show that Apple was citing to the two Ericsson papers, with the two
`
`papers combined in a single claim chart.
`
`Therefore, Apple’s original invalidity contentions disclosed the contention
`
`10
`
`that the combination of the Ericsson and Ericsson IP Traffic papers renders obvious
`
`11
`
`the asserted claims of the ’757 patent. Apple’s expert opinions about this same
`
`12
`
`combination are therefore not a “new theory altogether.” Fujifilm Corp., 2015 WL
`
`13
`
`757575, at *28-32. The fact that Apple served amended invalidity contentions
`
`14
`
`clarifying what Wi-LAN already understood—that the original claim chart
`
`15
`
`combined two different Ericsson papers—does not preclude Apple’s experts from
`
`16
`
`opining about the combination of Ericsson and Ericsson IP Traffic.
`
`17
`
`The single case Wi-LAN cites in support of its position is inapposite. See
`
`18
`
`Mot. at 6, citing Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, No.
`
`19
`
`2:15-cv-00037, 2017 WL 2651618, at *8 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2017). Elbit stands
`
`20
`
`for the unremarkable proposition that an expert cannot rely on untimely prior art
`
`21
`
`references that were stricken from a defendant’s invalidity contentions without an
`
`22
`
`adequate explanation for the delay. Id. Here, Apple disclosed Ericsson and
`
`23
`
`Ericsson IP Traffic in its timely June 2017 contentions, so its expert should be
`
`24
`
`permitted to opine about those references.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`B. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Ericsson and Klayman In Its
`Original Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Apple’s original invalidity contentions disclosed the combination of Ericsson
`
`and Klayman. Dkt. No. 306-1 at 9-11. As discussed above, Appendix E2 of
`
`-3-
`WEST\280982264.1
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13076 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Apple’s original invalidity contentions included a detailed claim chart showing how
`
`the Ericsson references render obvious—alone or in combination with other
`
`references—the limitations of the ’757 patent. Dkt. No. 296-4, Ex. I, pp. 384-416.
`
`Appendix E1 also included a detailed claim chart showing how Klayman renders
`
`obvious—alone or in combination with other references—the limitations of the ’757
`
`patent. Dkt. No. 296-4, Ex. H, pp. 340-83. Apple therefore disclosed where in each
`
`item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is found. P.L.R. 3.3. Apple
`
`also provided the required notice of the combination of Ericsson and Klayman
`
`showing obviousness, as both claim charts reserve the right to combine their
`
`10
`
`respective references with “any other disclosed prior art reference, alone or in
`
`11
`
`combination, whether produced by Apple or Wi-LAN, to show the element and
`
`12
`
`thereby invalidate those claims.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 296-4, Ex. H, p. 340, n.1.
`
`13
`
`Apple also produced these references to Wi-LAN on the same day it served its
`
`14
`
`original invalidity contentions in June 2017. Thus, Apple’s expert should be
`
`15
`
`permitted to opine about this properly disclosed combination.
`
`16
`
`Other courts have found similar disclosures to be sufficient. In Avago Techs.
`
`17
`
`Gen. IP PTE Ltd. v. Elan Microelectronics Corp., the court agreed that the
`
`18
`
`defendant’s disclosure of prior art combinations was sufficient where those
`
`19
`
`combinations were organized into two groups (one group disclosing motivations to
`
`20
`
`combine, and the other group disclosing image correlation techniques), and the
`
`21
`
`defendant represented that its theory of obviousness was the same for every
`
`22
`
`combination of references in the two groups. No. 4-cv-05385, 2007 WL 951818, at
`
`23
`
`*4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2007). The court acknowledged plaintiff’s argument that
`
`24
`
`this approach generated “billions of different possible combinations” and still found
`
`25
`
`the disclosure sufficient because it “reasonably specifie[d] the combination of prior
`
`26
`
`art references that allegedly render Avago’s patents obvious.” Id.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`In Fujifilm, the court declined to strike portions of defendants’ expert reports
`
`relying on obviousness combinations that were not specifically identified or charted
`
`-4-
`WEST\280982264.1
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13077 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`together in prior invalidity contentions. The court agreed with the defendant that,
`
`“while it did not specifically identify these [challenged] combinations, it did
`
`adequately disclose them.” 2015 WL 757575, at *28. There, the defendant had
`
`stated that the reference at issue “in combination with some or all of a series of
`
`other references rendered claims 1 and 35 obvious.” Id. at *29. Therefore, the fact
`
`that the defendant did not chart or otherwise disclose the specific combination of
`
`the reference (Bottum) with the other references at issue did not warrant preclusion.
`
`Id. (“In these circumstances, striking the Bottum combinations would be a windfall
`
`to Fujifilm and would be unfair to Motorola.”).
`
`10
`
`Notably, the Fujifilm court explained that a prior motion to compel, not a
`
`11
`
`motion to strike, was the more appropriate vehicle. The court reasoned that “if
`
`12
`
`Motorola’s failure to amend caused Fujifilm to suffer any confusion as to what
`
`13
`
`particular obvious combinations were being asserted, then the proper recourse
`
`14
`
`would have been for Fujifilm to compel Motorola to amend its invalidity
`
`15
`
`contentions, not for Fujifilm to wait until expert discovery and then move to strike
`
`16
`
`the expert report.” Id. at *29 (citations omitted); see also Charleston Med.
`
`17
`
`Therapeutics, Inc. v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, No. 2:13-CV-2078-RMG, 2015 WL
`
`18
`
`10913613, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 16, 2015) (general statement that disclosed references
`
`19
`
`either “independently or in combination” with other references anticipated or
`
`20
`
`rendered obvious the asserted claims sufficient).
`
`21
`
`Just as in these cases, the fact that Apple’s experts provided more detail
`
`22
`
`about the combination of Ericsson and Klayman does not make that combination a
`
`23
`
`“new theory altogether,” so Apple should not be precluded from relying on that
`
`24
`
`combination. Fujifilm Corp., 2015 WL 757575, at *28-32
`
`25
`
`Wi-LAN’s citation to a single distinguishable case from the Northern District
`
`26
`
`of Georgia does not change this result. Mot. at 6, citing Bayer Healthcare Pharms.,
`
`27
`
`Inc. v. River’s Edge Pharms., LLC, No. 1:11-cv-1634, 2015 WL 11142427 (N.D.
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`Ga. May 21, 2015). In Bayer, the patentee’s principal argument was that the “new
`
`-5-
`WEST\280982264.1
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13078 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`contentions were raised in responsive reports to Plaintiff’s rebuttal reports, thus
`
`prohibiting Plaintiffs from appropriately responding.” Id. at *9, 15. But here, Dr.
`
`Fuja served his invalidity report on February 15, 2018 (Dkt. No. 304-4 at 1) and
`
`Wi-LAN’s validity expert, Mr. Stanwood, served a rebuttal report one month later.
`
`Thus, this situation is unlike that in Bayer, where the defendant waited until after
`
`rebuttal reports to opine about certain obviousness combinations.
`
`C. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Doshi And Calvignac In Its
`Original Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Apple disclosed the combination of Doshi and Calvignac in its original
`
`10
`
`invalidity contentions. Dkt. No. 306-1 at 11-12. The arguments addressed above
`
`11
`
`regarding the Ericsson/Klayman combination apply with equal force to this
`
`12
`
`combination. Appendix B of Apple’s original invalidity contentions included
`
`13
`
`detailed claim charts showing how Doshi and Calvignac render obvious—alone or
`
`14
`
`in combination with other references—the limitations of the ’040 patent. Dkt.
`
`15
`
`No. 296-3, Ex. D, pp. 115-66; Dkt. No. 305-5. Apple therefore disclosed where in
`
`16
`
`both Doshi and Calvignac each element of each asserted claim is found. P.L.R. 3.3.
`
`17
`
`Apple also provided the required notice of the combination of Doshi and Calvignac
`
`18
`
`showing obviousness, as Apple reserved the right to combine Doshi and Calvignac
`
`19
`
`with “any other disclosed prior art reference, alone or in combination, whether
`
`20
`
`produced by Apple or Wi-LAN, to show the element and thereby invalidate those
`
`21
`
`claims.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 296-3, Ex. D, p. 115, n.1; Dkt. No. 305-5, p. 1, n.1.
`
`22
`
`Apple also produced these references to Wi-LAN on the same day it served its
`
`23
`
`original invalidity contentions in June 2017. It would be manifestly unjust to
`
`24
`
`prevent Apple and its expert from relying on this timely disclosed invalidity
`
`25
`
`contention.
`
`26
`
`/////
`
`27
`
`/////
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13079 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`D. Apple Disclosed The Combination Of Chuah And Sau In Its
`Original Contentions.
`
`Apple also disclosed the combination of Chuah and Sau in its original
`
`invalidity contentions, so Apple’s expert should be permitted to opine about it.
`
`Dkt. No. 306-1 at 12. The arguments addressed above regarding the
`
`Ericsson/Klayman combination apply with equal force to this combination.
`
`Appendices A, C, D and F of Apple’s original invalidity contentions included
`
`detailed claim charts showing how Chuah and Sau render obvious—alone or in
`
`combination with other references—the limitations of the ’145, ’761, ’020 and ’723
`
`patents. Dkt. No. 296-3, Ex. C, pp. 85-114; id., Ex. F, pp. 258-86; Dkt. No. 296-4,
`
`Ex. G, pp. 287-339; id., Ex. J, pp. 417-44; Dkt. No. 305-6 – Dkt. No. 305-9. Apple
`
`therefore disclosed where in both Chuah and Sau each element of each asserted
`
`claim is found. P.L.R. 3.3. Apple also provided the required notice of the
`
`combinations of Chuah and Sau showing obviousness, as Apple reserved the right
`
`to combine Chuah and Sau with “any other disclosed prior art reference, alone or in
`
`combination, whether produced by Apple or Wi-LAN, to show the element and
`
`thereby invalidate those claims.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 296-3, Ex. C, pp. 85, n.1; Dkt.
`
`No. 305-6 at n.2. Apple also produced these references to Wi-LAN on the same
`
`day it served its original invalidity contentions in June 2017. It would be
`
`manifestly unjust to prevent Apple and its expert from relying on this timely
`
`disclosed invalidity contention.
`
`E. Apple Disclosed Its Section 112 Defense Based On The Claim
`Limitation “Establish a Length…” In Its Original Invalidity
`Contentions.
`
`In its original invalidity contentions, Apple disclosed its Section 112
`
`challenge based on the claim limitation “establish a length…” recited in claim 1 of
`
`the ’040 patent. Dkt. No. 306-1 at 13. Apple contended multiple times in its
`
`contentions that the ’040 claim limitation “establish a length for the PDU based on
`
`bandwidth currently allocated to the specified connection in a current frame”—
`
`-7-
`WEST\280982264.1
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13080 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`which appears in multiple claims—lacks written description and therefore is invalid
`
`under Section 112. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 296-3, Ex. A, p. 61. Wi-LAN thus had
`
`notice of Apple’s contention that this claim language fails to comply with Section
`
`112. O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1360
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006). Apple’s original invalidity contentions inadvertently omitted the
`
`same contention for claim 1, but the contention is the same across all claims,
`
`because they use nearly identical language:
`
`’040 patent, claim 14
`
`’040 patent, claim 1
`
`
`“…establish a length for the PDU based
`on bandwidth currently allocated to the
`specified connection in a current
`frame…”
`
`
`
`“…establish a length for the PDU based
`on the bandwidth allocated to the
`specified connection in a current
`frame…”
`
`Apple’s experts should not be precluded from relying on Apple’s timely
`
`contention that the “establish a length for the PDU based on bandwidth currently
`
`allocated to the specified connection in a current frame” language appearing in
`
`claims 1, 14 and 16 of the ’040 patent lacks written description. Ixys Corp. v.
`
`Advanced Power Tech. Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1153 n. 19 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
`
`(permitting invalidity arguments not enumerated in invalidity contentions where
`
`plaintiff had notice).
`
`F. Apple’s Experts Are Entitled To Rely On Background Prior Art,
`Which Is Not Being Offered To Prove Invalidity.
`
`Wi-LAN’s motion to strike portions of Apple’s expert reports that discuss
`
`prior art used solely as background references or to support other timely disclosed
`
`references (such as the Ermel and Hartmann references) is contrary to established
`
`case law, which does not require prior disclosure of such references. Courts permit
`
`experts to rely on references not disclosed in invalidity contentions in these
`
`circumstances. Fujifilm, 2015 WL 757575, at *30; Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`-8-
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13081 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834, at *12 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016) (“I
`
`will continue to follow the approach of allowing previously undisclosed references
`
`to be used as background material, so long as they are not asserted as invalidating
`
`prior art references.”); Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 12-cv-
`
`01971-CW, 2014 WL 4090550, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (admitting certain
`
`references “to the extent that [they] are supporting documents to explain further
`
`how the chosen prior art references disclose required limitations”).1
`
`Here, Apple’s experts are not using background references to demonstrate
`
`invalidity. Rather, only four of those background references appear in the
`
`10
`
`“Technical Background”2 sections of Apple’s expert’s reports, and are used only as
`
`11
`
`background material to show, for example, the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`12
`
`skill in the art. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 304-6, Ex. C, pp. 406-22; Dkt. No. 304-5, Ex. B,
`
`13
`
`pp. 178-86. The other background references are used as supporting documents to
`
`14
`
`explain how prior art references disclosed in Apple’s original invalidity contentions
`
`15
`
`disclose the required limitations. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 304-5, Ex. B, pp. 230-31
`
`16
`
`(discussing two papers, Ermel and Hartmann, that describe the operation of the
`
`17
`
`GSM standard, without opining that the GSM standard in combination with either
`
`18
`
`paper is invalidating)3; Digital Reg, 2014 WL 4090550, at *9. The fact that the
`
`19
`
`Court did not permit Apple to amend its invalidity contentions to identify these
`
`
`1 See also Verinata Health, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 12-cv-00865, 2014 WL
`4100638, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014) (striking reference from expert report “to
`the extent that [the expert] relies on it as prior art that allegedly renders the asserted
`claims ... obvious” but allowing the expert to rely on the reference “as foundational
`or background material”); ASUS Comput. Int’l v. Round Rock Research, LLC, No.
`12-cv-02099, 2014 WL 1463609, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014); (prohibiting use
`of reference “as an anticipation or obviousness reference” but allowing expert to
`use it “for other purposes, e.g., to show the knowledge of a PHOSITA”).
`
` 2
`
` Those four background references are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,923,650; 6,493,331; and
`6,621,804; and the UMTS standard.
`
` 3
`
` Apple has withdrawn paragraphs from the Hochwald report that rely on the
`combination of GSM with Ermel or Hartmann, but the Court’s Order should not
`preclude Apple’s experts from discussing these references as supporting documents
`to explain how the GSM standard works.
`
`-9-
`WEST\280982264.1
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13082 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`references in its cover pleading does not disturb this rule of law, and should not
`
`preclude Apple from relying on references it was not required to disclose.
`
`Wi-LAN again cites the Elbit decision (Mot. at 8, 10), but that case does not
`
`even address the use of background references. Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd., 2017
`
`WL 2651618, at *8. Rather, the court in that case struck portions of an invalidity
`
`expert report that relied on untimely disclosed prior art references “to demonstrate
`
`obviousness.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, Elbit does not disturb the uniform rule
`
`that experts are permitted to discuss prior art references as background, even if
`
`those references had not been previously disclosed. The Court should decline to
`
`10
`
`strike Apple’s proper citations to background prior art in its expert reports. Finjan,
`
`11
`
`2016 WL 2988834, at *12; Verinata Health, 2014 WL 4100638, at *5; ASUS
`
`12
`
`Comput. Int’l, 2014 WL 1463609, at *8.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER AND GRANT APPLE’S
`MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE CONSIDERING WI-
`LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE.
`
`Wi-LAN motion to strike is premature until the Court considers Apple’s
`
`16
`
`motion for partial reconsideration and clarification (Dkt. No. 306), which should
`
`17
`
`render Wi-LAN’s motion to strike moot.
`
`18
`
`As to the references challenged in Wi-LAN’s opening brief, Apple seeks
`
`19
`
`clarification that the Order does not preclude Apple from: (1) relying on any portion
`
`20
`
`of Apple’s originally disclosed invalidity contentions, or (2) referring to any prior
`
`21
`
`art references for purposes of describing the background of the art or the
`
`22
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, or supporting other references,
`
`23
`
`which is expressly permitted under the law of this Circuit. Dkt. No. 306-1 at 15-16.
`
`24
`
`Clarification or reconsideration of the Order also is warranted because it does not
`
`25
`
`address the sufficiency of Apple’s disclosure of the references disclosed in Apple’s
`
`26
`
`original invalidity contentions, nor does it address whether Apple could continue to
`
`27
`
`rely upon references as background material. See Dkt. No. 297.
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`WEST\280982264.1
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 311 Filed 04/13/18 PageID.13083 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`As to the UMTS and Carvalho references, Apple’s motion for
`
`reconsideration analyzes the Ameranth Order, which articulates the correct standard
`
`for amending invalidity contentions under Patent Local Rule 3.6.b.2 and is contrary
`
`to the reasoning of t