Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21499 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`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
`
`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
`JACOB ANDERSON (Bar No. 265768)
`Jacob.anderson@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
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WI-LAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`AND RELATED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM
`(consolidated);
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM
`(lead case)
`
`APPLE INC.’S COMBINED MOTIONS
`IN LIMINE
`
`
`
`Date: July 20, 2018
`Time: 1:30 pm
`Dept.: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`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\282290831.3
`
` WEST\282102035.1
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21500 Page 2 of 26
`
`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
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`I. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND
`
`PREJUDICIAL UNRELATED MATTERS INVOLVING APPLE. ............. 1
`A. Wi-LAN’s “Apple Bashing” Is Irrelevant And Unfairly
`Prejudicial. ............................................................................................ 1
`Evidence And Argument About Alleged Labor Conditions In
`China Are Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial. ................................... 2
`Speculation About Apple “Slowing Performance” Of
`Qualcomm Chips Is Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial. .................... 3
`Evidence And Argument About Unrelated Apple Litigations Is
`Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial And May Confuse The Jury. .............. 3
`II. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT
`REFERENCES TO APPLE’S WITHDRAWN, STRICKEN OR
`REJECTED CLAIMS, DEFENSES AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`ARGUMENTS. ............................................................................................... 6
`III. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: EXCLUDE UNADJUSTED AND
`UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS. ................................... 9
`A.
`The Total, Unadjusted Amounts Of License Agreements Are
`Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial. ..................................................... 9
`
`. ......................... 11
`C. Apple’s Company-Wide Financial Information Is Irrelevant And
`Unfairly Prejudicial. ............................................................................ 11
`IV. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND
`UNHELPFUL TESTIMONY FROM ROBERT STOLL. ............................ 13
`V. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND
`UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL REFERENCES TO WHETHER APPLE
`TOOK CERTAIN STEPS IN RESPONSE TO WI-LAN’S CLAIMS. ........ 15
`A.
`The Fact That Apple Did Not File IPR Petitions On The
`Asserted Patents Is Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial. .................... 15
`Evidence And Argument About Whether Apple Obtained An
`Opinion Of Counsel Is Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial. .............. 16
`Evidence And Argument About Whether or When Apple’s
`Engineers Reviewed The Asserted Patents Is Irrelevant And
`Unfairly Prejudicial. ............................................................................ 17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21501 Page 3 of 26
`
`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
`
`Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 4:05-cv-37, 2014 WL 12719192 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) ......................... 6
`
`Aventis Evntl Sci. USA LP v. Scotts Co.,
`383 F. Supp. 2d 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ................................................................. 14
`
`Biscotti Inc., v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Case No. 13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2537021 (E.D. Tex.
`May 30, 2017) ................................................................................................ 15, 17
`
`Brigham & Women’s Hosp. Inc., v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`No. 08-cv-464, 2010 WL 3907490 (D. Del. Sept. 21, 2010) .............................. 13
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.,
`No. 09-cv-290, 2012 WL 5463669 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2012) ............................... 7
`
`Carson Optical Inc. v. eBay Inc.,
`202 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ................................................................. 16
`
`Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems,
`No. 03-cv-633, 2005 WL 2465900 (D. Del. Oct. 5, 2005) ................................... 7
`
`Crow Tribe of Indians v. Racicot,
`87 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................... 14
`
`DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Comput. Corp.,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................. 10
`
`DNT, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, LP,
`No. 09-cv-21, 2010 WL 582164 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2010) ................................... 7
`
`Droplets, Inc. v. Overstock.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-cv-401, 2014 WL 11515642 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2014) ..................... 16
`
`Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`52 F. Supp. 3d 949 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ....................................................... 1, 2, 4, 12
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21502 Page 4 of 26
`
`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)
`
`
`Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, ECF No. 519 (N.D. Cal. June 19,
`2014) ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Page
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-cv-03587, 2015 WL 12622055 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)....................... 6
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .................................................................................. 17, 19
`
`HTC Corp. v. Tech. Props. Ltd.,
`No. 08-cv-882, 2013 WL 4782598 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013) ...................... 11, 12
`
`Johns v. Bayer Corp.,
`No. 09-cv-01935, 2013 WL 1498965 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) ........................ 13
`
`LaserDynamic, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`No. 06-cv-348, 2011 WL 7563818 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2011) .............................. 10
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput. USA, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 10, 12
`
`Lectec Corp. v. Chattem, Inc.,
`Case No. 5:08-cv-130-DF, 2011 WL 13086026 (E.D. Tex. Jan 4,
`2011) .................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Magnivision, Inc. v. Bonneau Co.,
`115 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................. 13
`
`Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.,
`No. 13-cv-7228, 2015 WL 847391 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015) ........................... 14
`
`NetAirus Techs, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No. 10-cv-03257-JAK-E, ECF No. 523 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21,
`2013) ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21503 Page 5 of 26
`
`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)
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`Case No. 2:13-cv-213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 627430 (E.D. Tex.
`Jan. 30, 2015) ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`Page
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`No. 3:14-cv-757, 2015 WL 11382615 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2015) ....................... 16
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`No. 00-cv-4524, 2006 WL 2850028 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2006) ............................. 7
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`254 F. Supp. 3d 680 (D. Del. 2017) (asserted patents issued in 2004
`and 2002), appeal docketed, No. 17-2223 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2017) ................. 19
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 14
`
`Sygenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`No. 02-cv-1331, 2004 WL 2106583 (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2004) .............................. 14
`
`Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.,
`717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 17
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 9, 11, 12
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:10-cv-417, ECF No. 989 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) ................. 17, 18
`
`Western Geco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`837 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) rev’d sub nom. on other grounds,
`No. 16-1011, --- S. Ct.---, 2018 WL 3073503 (June 22, 2018) ............................ 7
`
`Wis. Alumni Research Found. v. Apple, Inc.,
`135 F. Supp. 3d 865 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) ............................................... 2, 7
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 298 ....................................................................................... 16, 17, 18, 19
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21504 Page 6 of 26
`
`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)
`
`Page
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402 ........................................................................................ passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ............................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 ........................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21505 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`I. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND
`PREJUDICIAL UNRELATED MATTERS INVOLVING APPLE.
`
`The Court should preclude evidence or argument about alleged past
`
`misconduct and the alleged poor character of Apple or Steve Jobs, as well as any
`
`prior unrelated litigations, investigations or accusations involving Apple or Mr.
`
`Jobs. For purposes of Apple’s motion, “unrelated litigations, investigations or
`
`accusations” means prior litigations, investigations or accusations not between the
`
`parties, with the exception of impeachment and cross-examination evidence of
`
`witnesses’ statements from prior litigations. Examples include the following
`
`documents on Wi-LAN’s exhibit list: (a) alleged labor conditions in China (e.g.,
`
`PX-597); (b) alleged slowing down of Qualcomm processors to match Intel
`
`processors (e.g., PX-502); and (c) unrelated litigations with Samsung, Qualcomm,
`
`Nokia and CCE (e.g., PX-372, PX-518, PX-529, PX-611). These topics have no
`
`place in this case and would serve only to prejudice Apple and mislead the jury.
`
`This purported evidence is irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative under
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.
`
`A. Wi-LAN’s “Apple Bashing” Is Irrelevant And Unfairly
`Prejudicial.
`
`Wi-LAN and its experts should not be permitted to engage in “Apple
`
`bashing” at trial. Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 52 F. Supp. 3d 949, 959 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2014) (granting motion where “Apple argue[d] that [plaintiff’s damages expert] has
`
`engaged in naked ‘Apple bashing’ … .”). Wi-LAN alleged in its complaint that
`
`“[n]otably, when Apple’s co-founder Steve Jobs discussed Apple’s success in a
`
`PBS documentary entitled ‘Triumph of the Nerds,’ he said, ‘We have always been
`
`shameless about stealing great ideas.’” Case No. 14-cv-1507, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 31.
`
`Wi-LAN has since advanced other inflammatory accusations of misconduct against
`
`Apple, as set forth below and in Sections B, C, D and E. All of this evidence is
`
`irrelevant, and more prejudicial than probative of any issue the jury must decide.
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21506 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The Emblaze case is on point. There, the plaintiff planned to offer expert
`
`testimony referring to all manner of prior allegations of misconduct against Apple
`
`and Steve Jobs. Apple moved in limine to exclude the irrelevant Apple bashing.
`
`The court agreed with Apple: “This is an easy call. [Plaintiff’s damages expert]
`
`will not be permitted to engage in such emotional appeals.” Emblaze Ltd., 52 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 959. The Emblaze court ruled: “Emblaze shall not offer evidence or
`
`argument regarding alleged past misconduct and the alleged poor character of
`
`Apple or Steve Jobs, as well as any prior unrelated litigations, investigations,
`
`accusations, or settlements involving Apple or Mr. Jobs.” Ex. 6, Emblaze Ltd. v.
`
`10
`
`Apple Inc., Case No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, ECF No. 519 at p. 3 (N.D. Cal. June 19,
`
`11
`
`2014). This Court should reach the same conclusion.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`B.
`
`Evidence And Argument About Alleged Labor Conditions In
`China Are Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial.
`
`The Court should not permit Wi-LAN to unfairly prejudice Apple with
`
`15
`
`evidence or argument about alleged work conditions of third-party iPhone
`
`16
`
`component manufacturers in China. At least four exhibits relating to Apple’s
`
`17
`
`manufacturers in China appear on Wi-LAN’s exhibit list: (1) PX-597 (titled
`
`18
`
`“Compilation of Articles/Press Releases About Apple in China”); (2) PX-316 (titled
`
`19
`
`“Fair Labor Association Begins Inspections of Foxconn”); (3) PX-320 (titled
`
`20
`
`“Apple Will Investigate New Claims of Labor Violations at Pegatron”); and
`
`21
`
`(4) PX-596 (titled “Apple Supplier List”). These hearsay allegations against third
`
`22
`
`parties are not relevant to any of Wi-LAN’s patent claims or Apple’s defenses, and
`
`23
`
`thus Wi-LAN could only offer them to unfairly prejudice the jury against Apple.
`
`24
`
`See Wis. Alumni Research Found. v. Apple, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 3d 865, 880 (N.D.
`
`25
`
`Cal. Sept. 29, 2015) (granting motion in limine to “preclude evidence and argument
`
`26
`
`of irrelevant aspects of Apple’s business,” including “working conditions related to
`
`27
`
`the manufacture of Apple products”).
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21507 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`C.
`
`Speculation About Apple “Slowing Performance” Of Qualcomm
`Chips Is Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial.
`
`The Court should not permit Wi-LAN to unfairly prejudice Apple with
`
`evidence or argument about whether Apple slowed performance of Qualcomm
`
`chips to match performance of Intel chips, including the third-party article on Wi-
`
`LAN’s exhibit list titled “Apple confirmed limiting iPhone 7 Qualcomm modem to
`
`keep performance on par with Intel chip.” PX-502. This theory is not relevant to
`
`any issues in this case, and at a minimum any such relevance would be outweighed
`
`by unfair prejudice. Wi-LAN is not alleging unfair competition in this case and has
`
`no way of connecting this theory to Wi-LAN’s liability or damages claims. Rather,
`
`Wi-LAN apparently intends to use this speculation as further Apple bashing. Wi-
`
`LAN should not be permitted to offer this irrelevant and prejudicial theory or seek
`
`to prove it up through any witnesses at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 401/402, 403.
`
`The evidence also is inadmissible hearsay. Despite its name, “Apple Insider”
`
`(the author of PX-502) is a third-party who is not affiliated with Apple (nor an
`
`“insider” at Apple). Moreover, despite the title of the exhibit, the third party is
`
`purportedly repeating statements made by third parties (not Apple)—Bloomberg,
`
`unidentified “sources familiar with the matter” and an analyst at “Jackclaw
`
`Research.” Third party speculation about whether Apple is slowing down
`
`Qualcomm chips—which Wi-LAN will offer for the truth of the matter asserted—is
`
`inadmissible double hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801.
`
`D. Evidence And Argument About Unrelated Apple Litigations Is
`Irrelevant, Unfairly Prejudicial And May Confuse The Jury.
`
`The Court should not permit Wi-LAN to unfairly prejudice Apple with
`
`evidence or argument about prior unrelated litigations, investigations or accusations
`
`involving Apple or Mr. Jobs (i.e., prior litigations, investigations or accusations not
`
`between the parties, with the exception of impeachment and cross-examination
`
`evidence of witnesses’ statements from prior litigations). Based on Wi-LAN’s
`
`-3-
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21508 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`exhibit list, it intends to do just that—in particular with respect to Apple’s
`
`litigations with Samsung, Qualcomm, Nokia and CCE. See PX-299, PX-372, PX-
`
`518, PX-519, PX-529, and PX-611; see also Ex. 1, Stanwood Supp. Report, ¶ 180
`
`at n.5 (citing article titled “Apple accuses Qualcomm of patent infringement in
`
`countersuit”).1
`
`Courts in other Apple litigations have reached the same conclusion, and
`
`excluded evidence of unrelated Apple litigations. Ex. 6, Emblaze Ltd., ECF No.
`
`519 at p. 3 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2014) (“Emblaze shall not offer evidence or
`
`argument regarding … any prior unrelated litigations, investigations, accusations,
`
`10
`
`or settlements involving Apple or Mr. Jobs.”); Ex. 7, NetAirus Techs, LLC v. Apple,
`
`11
`
`Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03257-JAK-E, ECF No. 523 at p. 2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013)
`
`12
`
`(granting portion of motion in limine “as to other litigation”). Wi-LAN took the
`
`13
`
`same position in discovery, refusing to produce documents from any prior Wi-LAN
`
`14
`
`litigations that did not involve Apple or patents related to the asserted patents in this
`
`15
`
`case. Dkt. No. 232-1 at 2-3.
`
`16
`
`Here, Apple’s litigations and investigations with third parties Samsung,
`
`17
`
`Qualcomm, Nokia and CCE would not have informed the hypothetical negotiation
`
`18
`
`between Wi-LAN and Apple.2 For example, Apple’s litigations with Samsung
`
`19
`
`involved an Apple competitor, lost profits and design patents. Wi-LAN is not a
`
`20
`
`competitor, the Apple patents asserted in that case bear no relation to the Wi-LAN
`
`21
`
`patents and were not directed to VoLTE functionality, and the Apple survey expert
`
`22
`
`in those litigations is not an expert in this case (Apple did not retain a survey expert
`
`
`1 PX-611 and the Qualcomm article are inadmissible for the additional reason that
`Wi-LAN first disclosed these documents (and others) in the past month, meaning
`Wi-LAN never produced the documents during discovery.
`2
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21509 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`in this case). Apple’s litigations with Qualcomm also do not impact Wi-LAN’s
`
`claims or Apple’s defenses in this case. Further, Apple’s litigations with CCE and
`
`Nokia involved patents unrelated to the asserted patents. Wi-LAN should not be
`
`permitted to prejudice Apple or confuse the jury with evidence or argument about
`
`these (or any other) irrelevant and unrelated litigations, accusations and
`
`investigations. Fed. R. Evid. 401/402, 403.
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`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\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21510 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`II. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT
`REFERENCES TO APPLE’S WITHDRAWN, STRICKEN OR
`REJECTED CLAIMS, DEFENSES AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`ARGUMENTS.
`
`The Court should preclude Wi-LAN from presenting or eliciting evidence of
`
`Apple’s withdrawn, stricken or rejected claims, defenses and claim construction
`
`arguments. This includes evidence of the Court’s prior rulings, except for the claim
`
`constructions the Court will provide to the jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Wi-LAN also said it intends to cross-
`
`examine Apple witnesses using claim construction pleadings that reference
`
`arguments not adopted by the Court. This would include portions of the Court’s
`
`claim construction order characterizing the parties’ arguments that were not
`
`adopted by the Court and the parties’ underlying briefing. Presenting or eliciting
`
`evidence of the Court’s prior rulings for direct or cross-examination, impeachment,
`
`or any other purpose is improper, irrelevant, prejudicial and confusing to the jury
`
`according to rulings of multiple courts in the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., See Fujifilm
`
`Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 12-cv-03587, 2015 WL 12622055, at *5-6
`
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (“Except to the extent necessary to present the Court’s
`
`claim constructions to the jury, the parties may not reference prior rulings from this
`
`case.”); Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig., No. 4:05-cv-37, 2014 WL 12719192, at
`
`*2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) (“The parties shall not present or elicit any evidence
`
`of the Court’s prior rulings in this case unless authorized by the Court.”).
`
`Presenting evidence of claim constructions not adopted by the Court is similarly
`
`improper, irrelevant and would confuse the jury. DNT, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum,
`
`LP, No. 09-cv-21, 2010 WL 582164, at *3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2010) (excluding
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21511 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`evidence related to claim constructions not adopted by the court as not relevant and
`
`increasing the risk of jury confusion).
`
`Wi-LAN also should be precluded from making references to Apple’s claims
`
`and defenses that were withdrawn, stricken by a prior Court order, or are no longer
`
`in the case pursuant to other Court orders.3 Similarly, Wi-LAN should be
`
`precluded from making any reference to claims and defenses that Apple will not
`
`present at trial. Courts routinely exclude irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of
`
`abandoned defenses. See, e.g., Wis. Alumni Research Found., 135 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`872 (“[T]he court need not inform the jury that it has already rejected Apple’s
`
`10
`
`anticipation claim based on Steely.”); Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, No. 03-cv-
`
`11
`
`633, 2005 WL 2465900, at *6 (D. Del. Oct. 5, 2005) (“evidence related to the
`
`12
`
`dismissed counterclaims are irrelevant to the claims at issue”).
`
`13
`
`Any suggestion that withdrawn or stricken claims or defenses are not
`
`14
`
`meritorious or are otherwise evidence of a weak position taken by Apple would be
`
`15
`
`unfairly prejudicial to Apple. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Moreover, Apple’s withdrawn or
`
`16
`
`stricken claims or defenses are not relevant to either party’s current claims or
`
`17
`
`defenses, and any references to these claims or defenses would be confusing to the
`
`18
`
`jury. Fed. R. Evid. 401/402, 403. Wi-LAN agrees with this principle (at least
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`3 By contrast, Wi-LAN’s change in infringement theories—and its prior LTE-
`based infringement theory accusing different products—is relevant to Wi-LAN’s
`willful infringement claim. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., No.
`00-cv-4524, 2006 WL 2850028, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2006) (refusing to
`exclude reference to withdrawn patents because such evidence was relevant to
`willful infringement and defendant’s reasonable belief in its defenses); Carnegie
`Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., No. 09-cv-290, 2012 WL 5463669, at *2
`(W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2012) (evidence of dropped or changed claims or products is
`relevant to willfulness and reasonableness of defenses). These cases were decided
`pre-Halo, but objective reasonableness is still relevant in determining willfulness.
`See Western Geco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 837 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) rev’d sub nom. on other grounds, No. 16-1011, --- S. Ct.---, 2018 WL
`3073503 (June 22, 2018).
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21512 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`when it benefits Wi-LAN), and conditioned limiting the number of asserted claims
`
`to a more reasonable number in May 2018 (from 60 claims to 20 claims) on
`
`Apple’s agreement to not “mention to the jury that Wi-LAN made any elections of
`
`claims.” Dkt. No. 369.
`
`In sum, given the volume of law prohibiting Wi-LAN from presenting or
`
`eliciting evidence of the Court’s prior rulings, or from presenting or eliciting
`
`evidence of Apple’s abandoned or stricken claims, defenses or claim construction
`
`positions, Apple requests that the Court grant its motion in limine.
`
`/////
`
`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\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21513 Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`III. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: EXCLUDE UNADJUSTED AND
`UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS.
`
`Apple requests the Court exclude any evidence or argument about three
`
`categories of unfairly prejudicial,
`
` numbers: (1) the total, unadjusted
`
`amounts of Apple license agreements, including
`
`; (2)
`
`
`
`
`
` and (3) Apple’s company-wide
`
`revenues, assets, profits, cash holdings, market cap and similar finances, and the
`
`total revenues and total profits related to the sale of Apple iPhones.
`
`A. The Total, Unadjusted Amounts Of License Agreements Are
`Irrelevant And Unfairly Prejudicial.
`
`Federal Circuit law does not permit Wi-LAN and its damages expert, Mr.
`
`Kennedy to “skew the damages horizon for the jury”
`
`. Wi-LAN
`
`and Mr. Kennedy intend to disregard this rule and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 352,
`
`Ex. 1, Kennedy Report, ¶ 514. In short, Mr. Kennedy intends to do precisely what
`
`the Federal Circuit prohibits: “skew the damages horizon for the jury”
`
`
`
`. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1320 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`
`
` these amounts “serve[] no purpose other than to increase the
`
`reasonable royalty rate above rates more clearly linked to the economic demand for
`
`the claimed technology.” LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput. USA, Inc., 694
`
`F.3d 51, 80-81 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21514 Page 16 of 26
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The unfair prejudice
`
` significantly outweighs their
`
`probative value because an expert may not rely on license agreements that are
`
`“radically different from the hypothetical agreement under consideration” to
`
`determine a reasonable royalty. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d
`
`1301, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As another judge in this District noted in DataQuill
`
`Ltd. v. High Tech Comput. Corp., “where a license covers a portfolio of patents or
`
`includes other intellectual property or services, Plaintiff must present evidence
`
`sufficient to allow the jury to weigh the economic value of the patented feature
`
`against the economic value of the features and services covered by the license
`
`10
`
`agreement.” 887 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1021-25 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting
`
`11
`
`LaserDynamic, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., No. 06-cv-348, 2011 WL 7563818, at
`
`12
`
`*3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2011)). Here, Mr. Kennedy admitted
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Kennedy Report, ¶ 483. In addition,
`
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 352, Ex. 1,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`to the
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B.
`
` The Court therefore should exclude all references
`
`. Fed. R. Evid. 401/402, 403.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282290831.3
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 417 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.21515 Page 17 of 26
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`