Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 386 Filed 06/01/18 PageID.20731 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`WI-LAN RESPONSE TO APPLE’S OBJECTION
`
`
`
`No. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM; (Lead Case
`No. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM)
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED BY WI-LAN IN
`OPPOSING APPLE’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Department: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`Hearing Date: June 15, 2018
`Time: 1:30 pm
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 386 Filed 06/01/18 PageID.20732 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Wi-LAN responds to Apple’s objections to the declaration of Wi-LAN’s
`
`infringement expert, Dr. Vijay Madisetti, that Wi-LAN attached to its opposition of
`
`Apple’s summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 380.) Apple objects to certain portions
`
`of Dr. Madisetti’s declaration as purportedly offering “new” opinions. Wi-LAN
`
`respectfully disagrees.
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s declaration is fully consistent with the opinions Dr. Madisetti
`
`provided in his expert report and at deposition. Dr. Madisetti’s declaration responds to
`
`Apple’s motion for summary judgment to correct a number of inaccurate statements
`
`about his infringement opinions. For example, Apple incorrectly argued that Dr.
`
`10
`
`Madisetti admitted certain claimed functionality was not present on the accused iPhones
`
`11
`
`as sold. Wi-LAN’s opposition corrected Apple’s statements by citing to Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`12
`
`report, his deposition testimony, Apple documents, as well as Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`13
`
`declaration. See, e.g., (ECF No. 358) (Wi-LAN Opp.) at 11, n. 6; 12, n. 8; 14.
`
`14
`
`Moreover, Apple’s summary judgment motion is largely based on new theories
`
`15
`
`that Apple raises for the first time on summary judgment. For example, Apple
`
`16
`
`presented an indefiniteness argument not raised in its expert reports. (ECF No. 330 at
`
`17
`
`7.) Apple also presents a new non-infringement theory that bandwidth must be
`
`18
`
`allocated to individual iPhone apps (as opposed to connections), which Apple did not
`
`19
`
`raise in its expert reports or its interrogatory responses setting forth Apple’s non-
`
`20
`
`infringement theories. (ECF No. 330 at 5-8). Even if Apple could show Dr. Madisetti
`
`21
`
`presented any new theory, which it does not, Apple’s objection should be denied in
`
`22
`
`light of Apple’s new arguments as well as the public policy reasons favoring deciding
`
`23
`
`matters on the merits. DR Sys. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 08-CV-669-H (BLM), 2009 U.S.
`
`24
`
`Dist. LEXIS 104080, *37-40 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2009) (denying motion to strike
`
`25
`
`declaration submitted with summary judgment briefing alleged to contain “entirely new
`
`26
`
`opinions” and stating “public policy reasons weigh in favor of deciding the matter on
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`the merits”).
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN RESPONSE TO APPLE’S OBJECTION
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 386 Filed 06/01/18 PageID.20733 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Dated: June 1, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Allison Goddard
`By:
` Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
` PATTERSON LAW GROUP
` 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
` San Diego, CA 92101
` (619) 398-4760
` (619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
` Robert Cote
` rcote@mckoolsmith.com
` Brett Cooper
` bcooper@mckoolsmith.com
` Kevin Schubert
` kschubert@mckoolsmith.com
` Christopher McNett (298893)
` cmcnett@mckoolsmith.com
` McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
` One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
` New York, NY 10036
` (212) 402-9400
` (212) 402-9444 (facsimile)
`
` Seth Hasenour
` shasenour@mckoolsmith.com
` MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
` 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
` Austin, TX 78701
` (512) 692-8700
` (512) 692-8744 (facsimile)
`
` Attorneys for Defendant,
` Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN RESPONSE TO APPLE’S OBJECTION
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 386 Filed 06/01/18 PageID.20734 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 1, 2018, I caused a copy of this pleading to be
`
`delivered via CM/ECF on the counsel of record.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 1, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Allison Goddard
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`
`
` San Diego, CA 92101
`
`(619) 398-4760
`
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
` Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`WI-LAN RESPONSE TO APPLE’S OBJECTION
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`