Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21288 Page 1 of 30
`
`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 Plaintiff,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN DIEGO
`No. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM; (Lead Case
`No. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM)
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`WI-LAN’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`REDACTED FOR PUBLIC FILING
`
`Department: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`Hearing Date: July 20, 2018
`Time: 1:30 pm
`
`))))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`vs.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`WI-LAN’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21289 Page 2 of 30
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE, OR SUGGESTION PERTAINING TO ANY OF
`APPLE’S EQUITABLE DEFENSES OF UNCLEAN HANDS, WAIVER &
`ESTOPPEL, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL,
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, INCLUDING
`BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY ARGUMENT OR SUGGESTION
`CONCERNING WI-LAN’S PURPORTED FAILURE TO DECLARE THE
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT TO ETSI AS POTENTIALLY ESSENTIAL TO LTE
`AND/OR ANY ARGUMENT OR SUGGESTION THAT THE PARTIES’
`PRIOR LITIGATION HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT WI-LAN BROUGHT
`THIS ACTION IN BAD FAITH ............................................................................ 1
`
`
`
` Apple’s Equitable Defenses Were Bifurcated and Should Be Excluded ..... 1 A.
`
`II. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE, OR SUGGESTION PERTAINING TO WIMAX
`(OR 802.16) OR THAT THE CLAIMS ARE LIMITED TO FIXED
`DEVICES/CPES AND EXCLUDE MOBILE DEVICES ..................................... 3
`
`A. WiMAX Is Not Relevant to the Background of the Art .............................. 5
`
`B. Mr. Lanning’s WiMAX Opinions on the ’145 Patent Are Irrelevant .......... 5
`
`C. Apple’s Expert for the ’757 Patent Admits WiMAX Is Not Relevant ........ 7
`
`D. Mr. Tocher’s Opinions Are Not Relevant .................................................... 7
`
`III. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE, OR SUGGESTION PERTAINING TO
`EVIDENCE FROM OTHER LITIGATIONS BETWEEN WI-LAN AND
`APPLE OR TO CLAIMS, ALLEGATIONS, OR INFRINGEMENT THEORIES
`DROPPED AND/OR DISMISSED IN THIS CASE ............................................. 8
`
`Prior Litigations Involving Other Patents/Products are Immaterial and
`A.
`Highly Prejudicial ................................................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Prior Litigations Are Improper Character Evidence .................................. 10
`
`C. Dropped/Dismissed Claims and Defenses Are Irrelevant .......................... 11
`
`D.
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................. 12
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21290 Page 3 of 30
`
`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
`
`IV. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE, OR SUGGESTION FROM APPLE OR ITS
`TECHNICAL EXPERTS ON PRIOR ART OR THE PURPORTED STATE OF
`THE ART .............................................................................................................. 13
`
`A. Apple’s Invalidity Expert Mr. Lanning ...................................................... 14
`
`B. Apple’s Invalidity Expert Dr. Fuja ............................................................. 14
`
`V. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE OR SUGGESTION THAT WI-LAN SHOULD
`HAVE SUED QUALCOMM, THAT QUALCOMM IS INDEMNIFYING
`APPLE, OR TO QUALCOMM’S ALLEGED INNOVATIVENESS ................ 15
`
`VI. MOTION TO STRIKE LATE-DISCLOSED FACT WITNESSES .................... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................ 18
`
`Statement of Relevant Facts ....................................................................... 18
`
`C. Apple’s Untimely Disclosure of Chuah and Doshi is Prejudicial. ............. 19
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Testimony from Chuah and Doshi is Not Relevant. .................................. 21
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................. 22
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-iii-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21291 Page 4 of 30
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc.,
`868 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (N.D. Ala. 2012) ..................................................................... 17
`
`Page(s)
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 9, 17
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................... 3
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`No. 1:11-cv-08540, ECF No. 874 at 1-2 ..................................................................... 9
`
`AVM Techs LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 15-33-RGA, 2017 WL 2938191 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2017) .................................. 10
`
`Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................... 16
`
`Classical Silk, Inc. v. Dolan Grp., Inc.,
`No. CV 14-09224, 2016 WL 7638112 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016) ............................ 21
`
`Cytologix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................... 4
`
`Dig. Reg of Tex., LLC v. Adobe Sys.,
`No. C 12-1971, 2014 WL 4090550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) ................................ 22
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`No. 09-cv-261-wmc, 2014 WL 1350720 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 4, 2014) ........................ 13
`
`E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Berkley & Co.,
`620 F.2d 1247 (8th Cir. 1980) ................................................................................... 13
`
`Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Mylan Pharms.,
`No. 11-cv-00717 (RMB/RW), 2014 WL 334178 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2014) .................. 5
`
`EZ Dock, Inc. v. Schafer Sys., Inc.,
`No. CIV. 98-2364, 2003 WL 1610781 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2003) ........................ 11, 13
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-iv-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21292 Page 5 of 30
`
`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
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 3:13-cv-05808, 2015 WL 9900617 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2015) ..................... 20, 21
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4560071 ......................................................................................... 10, 13, 22
`
`Forbes v. Cty. of Orange,
`No. SACV111330JGBANX, 2013 WL 12165672 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4,
`2013) .......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co.,
`797 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................. 12
`
`In re Homestore.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 01-11115 ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 22
`
`Moleski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Multimedia Patent Tr. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL 12868264 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20,
`2012) ...................................................................................................................... 2, 11
`
`Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.,
`267 F.R.D. 339 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................... 21
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-2061-H, 2016 WL 10933024 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2016) ................... 2, 11
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-02024-RMW, 2016 WL 590121 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2016) .................. 11
`
`Seals v. Mitchell,
`No. CV 04-3764 NJV, 2011 WL 1399245 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2011) ..................... 11
`
`SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:08-CV-158-JRG, 2012 WL 4092449 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2012),
`aff’d in relevant part, 769 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................ 9
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-v-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21293 Page 6 of 30
`
`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
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 4
`
`Tinnus Enters., LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`846 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................... 15, 17
`
`Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A.,
`944 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................... 16
`
`Vieste, LLC v. Hill Redwood Dev.,
`No. C-09-04024, 2011 WL 2181200 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2011) ................................ 20
`
`Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
`410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................... 21
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 ...................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ...................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ........................................................................................................ 2, 22
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .................................................................................................... 4, 8, 11
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 404 ...................................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Local Rule 3.3 ................................................................................................................. 17
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-vi-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21294 Page 7 of 30
`
`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
`
`Wi-LAN respectfully moves for an order in limine, prior to voir dire examination
`of the jury, instructing counsel, representatives, and all witnesses tendered not to
`mention, refer to, interrogate about, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner
`either directly or indirectly, any matters set forth below without first obtaining a
`favorable ruling from this Court outside the presence and hearing of the prospective
`jurors or the jury ultimately selected in this case. Wi-LAN also respectfully asks this
`Court to instruct the parties to warn and caution each witness to follow the same
`instructions.
`
`I. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE, OR SUGGESTION PERTAINING TO ANY
`OF APPLE’S EQUITABLE DEFENSES OF UNCLEAN HANDS, WAIVER
`& ESTOPPEL, EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL,
`COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, AND
`INEQUITABLE CONDUCT,
`INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY ARGUMENT OR
`SUGGESTION CONCERNING WI-LAN’S PURPORTED FAILURE TO
`DECLARE THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT TO ETSI AS POTENTIALLY
`ESSENTIAL TO LTE AND/OR ANY ARGUMENT OR SUGGESTION
`THAT THE PARTIES’ PRIOR LITIGATION HISTORY SUGGESTS
`THAT WI-LAN BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN BAD FAITH
`
`Wi-LAN respectfully requests that the Court preclude Apple, its counsel, or any
`witness at trial from offering argument, evidence, testimony, reference, or suggestion
`pertaining to any of Apple’s equitable defenses of Unclean Hands, Waiver & Estoppel,
`Equitable Estoppel, Promissory Estoppel, Collateral Estoppel, and Inequitable Conduct,
`including but not limited to any argument or suggestion concerning Wi-LAN’s
`purported failure to declare the patents-in-suit to ETSI as potentially essential to LTE
`and/or any argument or suggestion that the parties’ prior litigation history suggests that
`Wi-LAN brought this action in bad faith.
`Apple’s Equitable Defenses Were Bifurcated and Should Be Excluded
`A.
`
`The Court bifurcated all equitable issues from the jury trial “which shall be tried
`to the Court at a later date, if necessary.” (ECF No. 398 at 1.) Therefore, Apple’s
`
`WI-LAN MILS AND MTS
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01057-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21295 Page 8 of 30
`
`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
`
`equitable defenses are not relevant to any issue that will be tried before the jury. See
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., No. 14-CV-2061-H,
`2016 WL 10933024, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2016) (excluding testimony, evidence
`and argument related to equitable defenses where the Court bifurcated the equitable
`issues); Multimedia Patent Tr. v. Apple Inc., No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL
`12868264, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012) (precluding evidence or argument on
`equitable defenses because “evidence and argument for these equitable defenses is
`irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and likely to lead to jury confusion”).
`Apple’s equitable defenses are irrelevant to any of the legal issues at trial—
`infringement, invalidity, and damages. The Court should therefore exclude it from trial
`pursuant to FRE 402 and 403 as it serves no legitimate purpose other than to unfairly
`prejudice the jury against Wi-LAN, and to cast Wi-LAN as a litigious company that
`brings meritless suits. Indeed, the evidence that supports Wi-LAN’s purported failure
`to declare the patents-in-suit to ETSI as potentially essential to LTE will be presented
`by experts that will not be called in the jury trial—and those experts have no opinion as
`to infringement, validity or damages.
`To the extent Apple suggests that Wi-LAN’s request is not sufficiently specific,
`Apple’s argument is belied by the fact that Court’s routinely grant motions in limine
`using the language Wi-LAN has proposed in this case. Presidio, 2016 WL 10933024 at
`*3 (“The Court excludes all testimony, evidence and argument related to ATC’s
`affirmative defenses of laches, equitable estoppel, and waiver, absent a further showing
`from ATC as to relevance.”); Multimedia Patent Tr., 2012 WL 12868264 at *5
`(“Defendants are precluded from presenting evidence or argument to the jury on their
`equitable defenses absent further order of the Court.”). Thus, Wi-LAN’s request is
`consistent with this precedent, and the Court should grant Wi-LAN’s motion as
`proposed.
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21296 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`II. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE, OR SUGGESTION PERTAINING TO
`WIMAX (OR 802.16) OR THAT THE CLAIMS ARE LIMITED TO FIXED
`DEVICES/CPES AND EXCLUDE MOBILE DEVICES
`The Court should exclude WiMAX because it is not relevant to any trial issue—
`infringement, validity, or damages. In addition, the Court should preclude Apple from
`using WiMAX or Wi-LAN’s patent specifications to re-argue that Wi-LAN’s patent
`claims are limited to fixed devices/CPEs and exclude mobile devices and, therefore,
`Apple’s iPhones (mobile devices) do not infringe. The Court has repeatedly rejected
`Apple’s attempts to limit Wi-LAN’s patent claims to a fixed CPE embodiment as
`shown in WiMAX and in Wi-LAN’s patent specifications. (See ECF No. 361 at 3; see
`also ECF No. 203 (Order Construing Claims) at 6-7, n.3 (declining to limit the terms
`“subscriber units” and “subscriber stations” as a “fixed or portable, but not mobile,”
`CPE.).) While Apple has maintained that Mr. Lanning and Mr. Tocher have not and
`will not opine at trial that “the patents-in-suit are limited to fixed devices,” their
`opinions do exactly that for the jury. Ex. A (Lanning Report) ¶¶ 64-85 (comparing
`fixed WiMAX to the mobile WiMAX and LTE standards).
`WiMAX is a cellular standard first published in 2002, for which Wi-LAN’s
`patented inventions were submitted for use. This first WiMAX standard disclosed a
`fixed CPE embodiment (a stand-alone device through which a phone could access the
`internet). In 2005, the WiMAX standard was supplemented to include mobile use of
`WiMAX in the form of a subscriber unit, or ASIC, built into each phone. The
`inventions were left unchanged in mobile WiMAX. Ex. B (Expert Report of C. Royer)
`at ¶¶ 3-5. Indeed, mobile use was contemplated by the inventors. Ex. C (’145 Patent at
`1:40-42); Ex. D (’757 Patent at 1:29-32; 3:5-14).
`In the parties’ prior briefing, Apple conceded that WiMAX is not relevant to
`infringement—it is the law. (See ECF No. 361 at 3); see also Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst
`Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the court eschewed the
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21297 Page 10 of
` 30
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`cardinal principle that the accused device must be compared to the claims rather than to
`a preferred or commercial embodiment.”).
`Nor is WiMAX relevant to validity. Apple previously argued WiMAX was
`relevant to validity to show the commercial failure of Wi-LAN’s claims,
`
`
`
`
`WiMAX is also not relevant to the background of the invention, as the first
`version of WiMAX was released years after the patents were filed and neither Apple’s
`nor Wi-LAN’s experts contend that any WiMAX product practiced any of the asserted
`claims. The only validity issue left for trial is a written description defense to the ’757
`patent, and
`.
`Even if WiMAX was tangentially related to background, the Court should
`exclude it under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because its limited probative value is outweighed by
`the danger that it will confuse the jury, waste valuable trial time, and unfairly prejudice
`Wi-LAN. As is evident from Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s opinions, Apple intends
`to use WiMAX to suggest to the jury that Wi-LAN’s claims should be limited to a
`fixed CPE device and, therefore, Apple does not infringe. This is not background; it is
`a non-infringement position dependent on revisiting Apple’s rejected claim construction
`position before the jury, which is improper. Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating
`Ltd, 550 F.3d 1356, 1364 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur court has held that allowing a
`witness to testify before the jury on claim construction would be improper.”); Cytologix
`Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc., 424 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he risk of
`confusing the jury is high when experts opine on claim construction before the jury.”).
`To rebut these improper arguments, Wi-LAN will need to present the testimony of an
`additional expert witness to explain its patents teach the use of a subscriber unit in the
`form of an ASIC and contemplate mobile use, not just a fixed CPE embodiment (just as
`Wi-LAN did during Markman, see ECF No. 163 at 11-17). In addition, Wi-LAN will
`-4-
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21298 Page 11 of
` 30
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`need to present expert testimony regarding what WiMAX was, and that there was no
`difference between fixed and mobile WiMAX relevant to the claimed inventions. Wi-
`LAN will also need to cross-examine Apple’s experts on WiMAX to show it is not
`relevant to infringement. The jury will not understand why it is being presented with
`WiMAX evidence when the jury’s task is simply to compare the claims of the ‘145 and
`‘757 patents to Apple’s iPhones. The Court should prevent Apple from turning this
`trial into a WiMAX sideshow.
`A. WiMAX Is Not Relevant to the Background of the Art
`Apple cannot articulate a reason why learning about WiMAX is otherwise
`relevant background. The first version of WiMAX was published on April 8, 2002—
`well after the priority dates of the ’145 Patent (May 1999) and ’757 Patent (December
`2000). See Ex. E (IEEE 802.16 2001 Cover Page); Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Mylan
`Pharms., No. 11-cv-00717 (RMB/RW), 2014 WL 334178, at *31 n. 72 (D. Del. Jan. 26,
`2014) (“The Court recognizes that PX–0059 is a post-priority date document that is
`irrelevant to the state of the art as of the priority date and the Court does not rely upon it
`for that purpose.”). Further, neither the ’145 Patent nor the ’757 Patents mention the
`WiMAX standard – and for good reason. Exs. C-D (’145 and ’757 Patents). These
`patents disclose inventions Mr. Stanwood, the lead inventor, developed before there
`was a WiMAX standard. He developed the inventions while working on a proprietary
`product, Fiberless, for Ensemble (his employer at the time).
` Opinions on the
`B. Mr. Lanning’s
`
` Are Irrelevant
`
`
`
`
`Nevertheless, Mr.
`Lanning’s WiMAX opinions also are not relevant to the background of the invention.
`Mr. Lanning’s opinions on WiMAX are summarized in the table of contents from his
`expert report:
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21299 Page 12 of
` 30
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This argument is improper and will confuse the jury into thinking that
`WiMAX is relevant. It is not.
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21300 Page 13 of
` 30
`
`
`C. Apple’s Expert for the ’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Mr. Tocher’s Opinions Are Not Relevant
`Mr. Tocher’s WiMAX opinion is not relevant to the background of the invention.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21301 Page 14 of
` 30
`
`
`III. WI-LAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: NO ARGUMENT, EVIDENCE,
`TESTIMONY, REFERENCE, OR SUGGESTION PERTAINING TO
`EVIDENCE FROM OTHER LITIGATIONS BETWEEN WI-LAN AND
`APPLE OR TO CLAIMS, ALLEGATIONS, OR INFRINGEMENT
`THEORIES DROPPED AND/OR DISMISSED IN THIS CASE
`
`Wi-LAN respectfully requests that the Court preclude Apple, its counsel, or any
`witness at trial from offering argument, evidence, testimony, reference, or suggestion
`pertaining to other litigations between Wi-LAN and Apple for any purpose—including
`the existence of other litigations and insinuations of Wi-LAN having multiple
`litigations—and relatedly, claims, allegations, or infringement theories dropped and/or
`dismissed in this case. For clarity, this motion does not preclude the parties from
`relying on prior witness statements so long as there is no mention they came from a
`prior litigation.
`Pursuant to the Court’s order (ECF No. 371), Wi-LAN served its final election of
`asserted claims for trial, retaining only the ’145 and ’757 patents. Ex. J. Neither of
`these patents was ever asserted in any prior litigation between Wi-LAN and Apple.
`None of the products accused in this case, i.e., iPhone 6, 6S, 7, SE, and related models
`(“VoLTE iPhones”), was ever accused in any prior litigation between Wi-LAN and
`Apple. The first VoLTE iPhones were announced in September 2014 with the iPhone 6
`and iPhone 6 Plus. Ex. K (Apple’s Supp. Resp. to Interrog. No. 1).
`Prior Litigations Involving Other Patents/Products are Immaterial
`A.
`and Highly Prejudicial
`Reference to or evidence of Wi-LAN’s “involvement in other litigation prior to
`this Action is . . . irrelevant and carries with it a high risk of prejudice.” In re
`Homestore.com, Inc., No. CV 01-11115 RSWL CWX, 2011 WL 291176, at *1 (C.D.
`Cal. Jan. 25, 2011); see also Moleski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 n.3 (9th Cir.
`2007) (introducing evidence of previous lawsuits to discredit plaintiff “appear[s] …
`irrelevant or at least far more prejudicial than probative [under FRE 403]”). For
`example, in this case Apple’s damages expert report characterizes four prior litigations
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-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 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21302 Page 15 of
` 30
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`involving Wi-LAN’s patents but none of the prior litigations involved any of the
`accused VoLTE iPhones or the ’145 or ’757 patents.
`Hypocritically, Apple sued Motorola for patent infringement and then moved in
`limine to exclude evidence from its lawsuit against Samsung involving the same patent.
`Ex. L, Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08540, ECF No. 874 at 1-2. The Court
`granted that motion. Ex. M, Apple, No. 1:11-cv-08540, ECF No. 980 (granting MIL to
`preclude reference to prior litigation as irrelevant and likely to prejudice the jury; also
`noting that Apple moved to preclude Motorola from discussing prior litigation
`involving one overlapping patent (’002 patent) as irrelevant, yet opposed Motorola’s
`argument that was made on those same grounds). Here, there are zero common patents
`between this jury trial and the prior litigations, making any relevance of prior litigations
`even more tenuous than what Apple succeeded in precluding in Apple v. Motorola.
`During the parties’ meet and confer, Apple informed Wi-LAN that it believed the
`prior litigation between the parties to be relevant to willfulness. But, Apple is factually
`and legally incorrect. This Court’s order in the previous case granting summary
`judgment of non-infringement involved different products (Apple’s non-VoLTE
`iPhones using a single connection), and different patents-in-suit (’040 and ’640
`patents). See SSL Servs., LLC v. Citrix Sys., Inc., No. 2:08-CV-158-JRG, 2012 WL
`4092449, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2012), aff’d in relevant part, 769 F.3d 1073, 1092,
`1094 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And the relationship between the remaining asserted patents in
`this case with the previous case is an insufficient link for willfulness, as the Federal
`Circuit mandates that willfulness be evaluated on a patent-by-patent basis. Advanced
`Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`(“The only connection, which Medtronic does not argue, would be that the patents are
`all related. However, that relationship is an insufficient connection in this case because
`the claims are different.”).
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21303 Page 16 of
` 30
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`To the extent Apple argues that the prior litigation is relevant to damages,3
`Apple’s damages expert only discusses prior litigation in the context of Georgia-Pacific
`factor 15, claiming that the parties would have considered
`
`
` As explained above, none of the prior
`cases is relevant to the disputed issues that will be tried before the jury here—with
`different patents and non-VoLTE iPhones using a single connection—which should
`itself warrant exclusion. See AVM Techs LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 15-33-RGA, 2017 WL
`2938191, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2017) (granting motion in limine to exclude reference
`to another lawsuit, finding that the outcome “is irrelevant to his bargaining position at
`the date of the hypothetical negotiation,” and whatever probative value “is substantially
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice”).
`Prior Litigations Are Improper Character Evidence
`B.
`Evidence inferring or suggesting that a Plaintiff is litigious poses a substantial
`danger of jury bias, because it would undoubtedly cause the jury to question the validity
` See Forbes
`v. Cty. of Orange, No.
`of Plaintiff’s
`current
`claims.
`SACV111330JGBANX, 2013 WL 12165672, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2013) (quoting
`Dupard v. Kringle, 76 F.3d 385, 1996 WL 56098, at *4–5 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Evidence
`regarding [the plaintiff's] general aggressiveness and litigiousness is precisely the type
`of character evidence admitted to prove propensity that is prohibited by Rule 404.”)).
`Unless the prior lawsuits have been shown to be fraudulent, the probative value of
`evidence pertaining to a plaintiff’s litigation history is substantially outweighed by the
`
`
`3
`
`WI-LAN’S MILS AND MTS
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 412-1 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.21304 Page 17 of
` 30
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`danger of jury bias. See Seals v. Mitchell, No. CV 04-3764 NJV, 2011 WL 1399245, at
`*5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2011) (granting motion in limine to exclude references to
`plaintiff's other lawsuits or grievances under Rules 403 and 404(b)). Apple has not
`argued that the prior lawsuits are fraudulent, and as explained above, any marginal
`probative value of the prior litigations would be substantially outweighed by the danger
`of jury bias against Wi-LAN.
`While Apple has asserted an affirmative defense of unclean hands based on these
`prior litigations, the Court bifurcated all equitable issues from the jury trial “which shall
`be tried to the Court at a later date, if necessary.” (ECF No. 398 at 1.) Thus, Apple’s
`prior litigation evidence as it relates to Apple’s equitable defenses should be excluded
`as it not relevant to any issue that will be tried before the jury. See Presidio
`Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., No. 14-CV-2061-H, 2016 WL
`10933024, a