`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i | | | ||
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 23581
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 32 PagelD #: 23581
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 15-542-JFB-SRF
`
`Vv.
`
`APPLE,INC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`eSaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 15-545-JFB-SRF
`
`Vv.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC.,
`
`‘PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Defendants.
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS APPLE INC.’S,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA,INC.’S JOINT MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`John W. Shaw (#3362)
`Karen E. Keller (#4489)
`Andrew E. Russell (#5382)
`David M.Fry (#5486)
`Nathan R. Hoeschen (#6232)
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`LM.Pei Building
`1105 N. Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 298-0700
`jshaw@shawkeller.com
`kkeller@shawkeller.com
`
`arussell@shawkeller.com
`dfry@shawkeller.com
`nhoeschen@shawkeller.com
`
`Counselfor Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu-A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6" Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc.
`
`Dated: August 30, 2018
`Public Version Dated: September 6, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 23582
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 32 PagelD #: 23582
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`MOTIONIN LIMINE NO. 1: PRECLUDE EVOLVED FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE
`REGARDING HOW EVOLVED ARRIVED ATITS $0.25 PER-DEVICE FIGURE......1
`
`I.
`
`IH.
`
`MOTION JIN LIMINE NO, 2: PRECLUDE DR. COOKLEV AND EVOLVED FROM
`ARGUMENTS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY REGARDING INFRINGEMENT
`UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS wo. ccecccsessecnessersecnssesssescnesenesneeseneeses 6
`
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY REGARDING
`EVIDENCE OF, OR REFERENCE TO, THE PTAB’S DECISION NOT TO
`INSTITUTE IPR PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE 7373 PATENT.occ eeeseeeeeeereee il
`
`IV.
`
`MOTION JIN LIMINE NO. 4: EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY OR DECLARATIONS
`FROM ANY LG ELECTRONICS WITNESS... ccc eceesecsecreeeeesecesesaeeaesessaesaesaeeraes 13
`
`MOTIONIN LIMINE NO. 5: EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL
`RESOURCES AND SIZE, AS WELL AS UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL DOLLAR
`AMOUNTSOF SALES OF ACCUSED PRODUCTS. no eceeseneeresteceerseesoeeeees 19
`
`VI.
`
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6: PRECLUDE EVOLVED FROM RELYING ON
`DOCUMENTS PRODUCED AND FACT TESTIMONY DISCLOSED MORE THAN
`A YEAR AFTER THE CLOSE OF FACT DISCOVERY. ooo. ceesseeereeeetseeeetseesees 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 23583
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 3 of 32 PagelD #: 23583
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|ii|
`||i|
`||
`
`:||i{|||i| \||||i|
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Acantha LLC y. Depuy Orthopaedics Inc.,
`No. 15-C-1257, 2018 WL 2431852 (E.D. Wis. May 30, 2018) voc ceccecsssesseeeeree reece 12-13
`
`AmgenInc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC,
`C.A. No. 16-853-MSG, 2018 WL 1885664 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2018)... ec eesseesernecneenennee 9
`
`Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Co.,
`C.A. No. 13-843-LPS, 2016 WL 6404111 (D. Del. Oct. 27, 2016) occ eeeeeteeeeeeeeeees 11,12
`
`Art+ComInnovationpool GMBHv. Google Inc.,
`C.A. No. 14-217-TBD, D.I. 382 (D. Del. May 16, 2016)... eeeeeseeeeteeneeeetesereeeeeen 11, 12
`
`B. Braun Melsungen AG vy. Teramo Med. Corp.,
`749 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D. Del. 2010)... cc eccssseenectertensecterseeevsceseseesesneseeceeceeseessesseseesaeeeeeeeons 23
`
`Baltimore Aircoil Co. v. SPX Cooling Techs. Inc.,
`No. CCB-13-2053, 2016 WL 4426681 (D. Md. Aug, 22, 2016)... ice eeeseseeeesesrertrererseesaeens 8
`
`Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Accuray, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-1043, 2013 WL 3305478 (W.D. Pa. July 1, 2013)... cee eecesseeseenscereereeererseeenns 8-9
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir, 2009)... ccccsescesscesseseeceeeeseesesenecnecsesesenseeseeneessesnssesessesesesssceeeseneena 13
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC y. OpenTYV, Inc.,
`No. C 16-6180, 2017 WL 2630088 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2017)... cc ccceccesccesesteesseereeneseesneeeenaees 8
`
`CP Kelco United States, Inc. v. Pharmacia Corp.,
`213 F.R.D. 176 (D. Del. 2003) oe eeesesseeereeseseetesecsessereesesensecseesesesseasesessneseersseesesesneeseeee 5
`
`Crawford v. George & Lynch, Inc.,
`19 F. Supp. 3d 546 (D. Del. 2013)... ec eeeecseseeeteseseeseeseesseeeeseeneeecnsvsersesessesserserseseseaseeneaseens 5
`
`Dynetix Design Solutions v. Synopsys, Inc.,
`No. C11-5973-PSG, 2013 WL 4537838 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) cc cicceseseessctseeteeneerneenas 9
`
`Finch v. Hercules Inc.,
`C.A. No. 92-251 MMS, 1995 WL 785100 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 1995) voice cecesetencetseneenneeees 26
`
`Harris v. NewJersey,
`259 F.R.D. 89 (D.N.J. 2007). ee ceeseceteeteteeeneeneesceceeteeseeeeceseeeeeeseesessenecesenseneessesevseseensceseeesenee 5
`
`Helios Software LLC et al v. SpectorSoft Corp.,
`C.A. No. 12-81-LPS, D.I. 545 (D. Del. Apr. 24, 2015)... cic ceceneseeteceeetetneeneeseeseeeeseeeaeeeaneas 23
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 23584
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 4 of 32 PagelD #: 23584
`
`Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC y. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-1031, 2018 WL 3348998 (D. Del. July 9, 2018)... cceccceseseeteesssssessecereeeneens 11
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Groupon, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 16-122-LPS, 2018 WL 3007662 (D. Del. June 15, 2018)... eee ecceteeteeteeeees 24-25
`
`Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. Hyperbranch Medical Technology, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2186677 (D. Del. May 11, 2018) wo... ceeecseessenteeens 11
`
`Interdigital Communications Inc., et al. v. Nokia Corporation,et al.,
`C.A. No. 13-10-RGA, 2014 WL 8104167 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2014) once ccesesessteeeteesteeens 12
`
`Inventio AG vy. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corp.,
`C.A. No. 08-874-RGA, 2014 WL 554853 (D. Del. Feb. 6, 2014) once eccceeteeteeees 19-20, 21
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. y. Quanta Comput. USA, Inc.,
`694 F.3d S51 (Fed. Cir, 2012)... ccccccccccscesecssscsseesecsseesecesecsecsssessssecsssesscsscsaecssssaessesseenseessessaeenes 21
`
`Lectec Corp. v. Chattem, Inc.,
`Case No. 5:08-cv-130-DF, 2011 WL 13086026 (E.D. Tex. Jan 4, 2011) wo eeesteeneeeee 20
`
`Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n,
`559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir, 1977)... ccccsecssessessessecnecsecsecnececeecnessessetseeseesecsseeeeaessceeenessessteaessesseenats 23
`
`MICS & Partners America Inc. vy. Toshiba Corp.,
`C.A. No. 14-803-RGA,D.I. 557 (D. Del. Oct. 12, 2017)... ceccceesessessseeesssessesessserenees 11,12
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 2d 460 (D. Del. 2006)... ccc cecccesscesseceseccsseesecerscesseesseeseteseesseceseeesensecsnane 17, 26
`
`Prisua Engineering Corp. v. Samsung,
`No. 1:16-cv-21761-KMM,D.I. 268 (D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2018)... ccceccsessecesssessesseeaseeeseeseennes 12
`
`Probatter Sports, LLC y. Sports Tutor,Inc.,
`No. 3:05-cv-01975-VLB,2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92107 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2015)... 10
`
`QBEIns. Corp. v. Jorda Enters.,
`277 F.R.D. 676 (S.D. Fla. 2012) .cccccccssscssesssseecnsssceeseneresearseeacesseesesenessesseaseersessensenesesenees 5
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M HoldingsInc.
`C.A. No. 14-1330-WCB, 2017 WL 5633204 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2017) ....ccccccscssssessesssceteeeeeees 7
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,
`C.A. No. 04-1436-LPS, 2012 WL 1015993 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2012) voc ccccccescsecteesesseeteenees 8
`
`Stambler v. RSA Sec., Inc.,
`212 F.R.D. 470 (D. Del. 2003) 0... ce cesccssceesscesseesscesstecssessscssecesscesscessesseessseessecseesseesseeeenss 21, 23
`
`ili
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 23585
`Page 5 of 32 PagelD #: 23585
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18
`
`
`
`
`
` |
`
`iii |i|i|:
`
`Sycamore IP Holdings LLC yv. AT&T Corp.,
`No. 2:16-cv-588, 2017 WL 4517953 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) ccc eeecenesteeteeteetertreneeteees 8,9
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013)... ce ccececcsscceseeseeseeseseneseseeeceeseeesseeseesaeeneceaessessacsaevseesseeneaaeas 13
`
`Teashot LLC y. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.,
`595 F. App’x. 983 (Fed. Cit, 2015) occ cecccecccscsseeeesseesseneceeeseesseeseseseeseessessecsecsaessesssesseeseeseneees 8
`
`Tracinda Corp. v. Daimlerchrysler AG,
`C.A. No. 00-993-JJF, 2005 WL 927187 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2005) oo... ee eeeccesseetteeeeteeeneeneeeens 25
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir, 2011) ccc ceesscscessecsscceseeseesseeneesscseceesseeseensesseeeceeseaeesceaeeneesseasegs 21
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D.Del. 2016)... ecesesceccneeseecseeeseesersecseeeseceeceseseseeseseesesssetseesaeenseees 21
`
`ViaTech Tech. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`C.A. No. 14-1226-RGA, 2017 WL 2538570 (D. Del. June 12, 2017) oc eeeeeseeseeneeneneeneee 8
`
`ViaTech Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2017-2276, 2018 WL 2338136 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2018)... escscessessscnsceeeenseneeeteesrereneeeas 8
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir, 2014)... eecesesecesecesecssesseessecseessessesseceeessesseessseeesseeeaseasenasenesesesoues 13
`
`Xpertuniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 9-157-RGA,D.I. 608 (D. Del. Feb 28, 2013) oc cieceseeceeeseterserteeerereesserereneeenee 8
`
`AY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics,
`No. 13-cv-0876-WJM-NYW,2016 WL 97691 (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2016) wee eceeeneteseeenecenees 12
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26........6eacecaecesessceceaeeeeeeseneeneessacessceceaeeeseseaeensesaesaeseaeesaeeeaeesseraeteeeeeaeesaeenags passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(C) w.ccccecccscsscscesseesecneessecsscssecsseesesessssseeeeseseaceaeesesteseaeensesseesecsesenesss 14, 17, 19, 23
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 vce ceesscessesseseceeseneersecseceessseseecsaesseceneceesesesseseessesaeeveesaesasesaseasenaeeas 11, 19, 20
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 wee cccscsscsscssessecseeesscesecsecseevseessesseeeeseeeeeeesesseseseeseaeseeesseseeseeeaeaes 11, 13, 19, 20
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 v..cccccscccccssssscsssecssecseceesssssecessesessesseecsescesaeseesesscssesensesseecseesnseesessesssesneeenaes passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 23586
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 6 of 32 PagelD #: 23586
`
`|ii
`
`|i i| ii j
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`I,
`
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1; PRECLUDE EVOLVED FROM OFFERING
`EVIDENCE REGARDING HOW EVOLVED ARRIVEDATITS $0.25 PER-
`DEVICE FIGURE
`
`Aspart of the pre-suit licensing negotiations between Evolved and Defendants, Evolved
`
`claimed it was offering a license with “a royalty rate for all FRAND-obligated patents” Ea
`
`De (Jay Decl.!, Ex. A.) Defendants diligently pursued
`
`discovery on how Evolved had derived that| which is relevant, at the very least, to
`
`Defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims that Evolved breachedits obligation to offer
`
`a license to the patents-in-suit on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
`
`(“FRAND”). Despite Defendants’ best efforts through discovery and motion practice, Evolved
`
`thwarted Defendants’ attempts to learn how Evolved derived|. Thus, Defendants
`
`seek to preclude Evolved from offeringattrial any evidence about how it arrived at [ER
`
`a.
`
`In March 2017, Defendants deposed Abha Divine, one of Evolved’s two managing
`
`directors, in both her individual capacity and as Evolved’s designee on numerous 30(b)(6)
`
`deposition topics that Defendants had served. Those topics included, amongothers, how
`
`Evolvedderived| in its letters. Over the course of three days, Ms. Divine
`
`steadfastly refused and/or maintained her inability to answer dozens of questions that Defendants
`
`asked about how Evolved had formulated| For the bulk of these questions, Ms.
`
`Divine refused to answeron thebasis of privilege and work-product objections from Evolved’s
`
`counsel, (£.g., Jay Decl., Ex. B at 189:6-24, 213:6-12, 215:6-22, 267:15-268:9; Jay Decl., Ex. C
`
`
`
`! “Jay Decl.”refers to the Declaration of Michael D. Jay in Support of Defendants Apple Inc.’s,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s Joint Motions Jn
`Limine.
`
`

`

`
`
`|
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 7 of 32 PagelD #: 23587
`
`at 433:2-434:12, 482:17-483:24, 572:15-574:11.) For the few questions about3a
`
`that counsel permitted her to answer, Ms. Divine was essentially unable to provide any
`
`information at all. (F.g., Jay Decl. B at 188:11-16, 267:15-23, 288:25-289:10; Jay Decl., Ex. C
`at 477:17-479:1, 543:5-11, 563:14-564:1; Jay Decl., Ex. D at 595:24-596:24, 599:4-10, 601:8-
`
`603:2.) And the few times.that Ms. Divine did respond to Defendant’s questions, her responses
`
`were limited to telling Defendants that the answers to their questions were contained in some
`
`general category of documents that Evolved had purportedly produced. (E.g., Jay Decl., Ex. B at
`
`74:24-75:11, 162:4-9, 172:18-174:2, 185:18-188:18, 211:4-213:4, 244:12-23; Jay Decl., Ex. C at
`
`399:9-25, 432:4-10, 461:21-462:20, 513:7-11; Jay Decl., Ex. D at 601:8-603:2, 609:6-610:7.)
`
`Because of Ms. Divine’s inadequate testimony, Defendants moved to compelfurther
`
`30(b)(6) testimony from Evolved. (D.I. 161.7) Judge Fallon granted Defendants’ motion,
`
`finding that “the testimony that Ms. Divine provided regarding the calculation of the royalty rate
`
`is deficient” and that “[s]upplemental 30(b)(6) testimony on[A is warranted
`
`to provide defendants with an opportunity to explore the factual underpinningsof the disclosed
`
`royalty rate.” (D.I. 173at 6.) Consistent with the instant motion in limine, Judge Fallon also
`
`cautioned that with respect to Evolved’s numerousprivilege objections, “Evolved should be
`
`mindful that it may be precluded from affirmatively offering information attrial which was not
`
`covered duringthe 30(b)(6) deposition due to privilege assertions.” (/d.)
`
`In response to Judge Fallon’s Order, rather than again designating Abha Divine,? Evolved
`
`designated Evolved’s other Managing Director, Mark Roche,as its 30(b)(6) witness for a
`
`
`
`? Unless otherwise noted, docket entries (D.I.) cited herein refer to Case No. 15-cv-542.
`3 After the fact, counsel for Evolved said that it did not designate Ms. Divinefor the
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 8 of 32 PagelD #: 23588
`
`supplemental deposition. The designation of Mr. Rochefor this supplemental 30(b)(6)
`
`deposition suggests that Evolved was engagingin a deliberate strategy to limit Defendants’
`
`ability to obtain information regarding the formulation of [MM Mr. Roche had
`
`previously testified at his individual deposition that he had very limited involvement in
`
`Evolved’s day-to-day business and had virtually no personal knowledge of any information
`
`pertaining to how Evolved arrived at[J and he again confirmed that at the
`
`supplemental 30(b)(6) deposition. He testified repeatedly that his answers were based on
`
`information that Ms. Divine had told him during their meetings to prepare for the supplemental
`
`deposition. (Jay Decl., Ex. E at 13:7-14:3, 27:4-28:15, 76:4-79:7, 82:13-17, 89:19-24, 124:10-
`
`20, 133:20-134:8, 136:4-16.) Given that Ms. Divine wasthe source of Mr. Roche’s knowledge
`
`on-the topics in his 30(b)(6) deposition, it makeslittle sense that Ms. Divine was unable during
`
`her own three-day deposition to answer the questions that Mr. Roche subsequently answered at
`
`the supplemental 30(b)(6) depositions based on Ms. Divine’s knowledge.
`
`At the supplemental 30(b)(6) deposition, Mr. Roche gave a few limited answers beyond
`
`what Ms. Divine had provided, but Mr. Rochestill failed to provide adequate testimony on the
`
`issue ofRM «In particular, Evolved again asserted privilege and work product
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`instructions to selectively shield from discovery most aspects of Evolved’s formulation of ||
`
`
`
`supplemental 30(b)(6) deposition because she wasnot available on the day of the deposition.
`That day, however, was only one of many possible dates on which Defendants said they were
`available to take Evolved’s deposition. Had Evolved actually wanted to designate Ms. Divine,
`the parties could have agreed upona date that worked forher.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 9 of 32 PagelD #: 23589
`
`PERS in its letters. Mr. Roche provided some high-level testimony about a subset of the
`
`information and documents that Evolvedconsidered in formulatingi but would
`
`not answer, based on counsel’s privilege instructions, how Evolved used that subset of
`
`information and documentsto arrive at IJ (£.¢., Jay Decl., Ex. E at 25:4-24, 29:6-16, 30:9-
`
`15, 36:19-37:5, 38:10-40:2, 43:9-44:25, 65:7-66:1.) Nor would Mr. Roche answer whether
`
`Evolved conducted any investigation into the accuracy of this subset of information.
`
`(/d. at 33:5-
`
`36:7.) Andfor the first time, Defendants learned abouta “starting-point rate” analysis that
`
`Evolvedallegedly performed. (/d. at 71:11-86:9.) Mr. Rochetestified that it was likely Ms.
`
`Divine who performedthat analysis (id. at 76:4-79:7), and yet Ms. Divine never once mentioned
`
`that analysis in response to Defendants’ numerous questions to her about Evolved’saaa
`
`Evolved concealed the existence of this analysis from Defendants until Mr. Roche’s
`
`supplemental 30(b)(6) deposition, which waslong after the close of fact and expert discovery,
`
`thereby limiting Defendants ability to further investigate this analysis.
`
`In addition to the depositions of Ms. Divine and Mr. Roche, Defendants also deposed
`
`Matt DelGiorno, counsel for Evolved who had engaged in the pre-suit negotiations with
`
`Defendants. Like the other depositions, Mr. DelGiorno refused to answer on privilege and work
`
`product grounds numerousquestions regardingEM to Defendants. (E.g., Jay Decl. F
`
`at 61:12-22, 63:2-19, 77:20-79:4, 80:4-17, 81:6-23, 89:20-92:25, 96:12-97:5, 99:1-100:19,
`
`101:17-102:10, 103:18-105:1.)
`
`Asa result of Evolved’s witnesses’ selective memories and Evolved’s counsel’s repeated
`
`privilege objections, Evolved effectively blocked Defendants from learning how Evolved
`
`developedits{J For Evolved to now present any evidenceattrial about howit
`
`derivedI would both violate the spirit of Rule 30(b)(6) and allow Evolvedto use
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 10 of 32 PagelD #: 23590
`
`privilege as both a sword and a shield. As Judge Fallon stated in her Order granting Defendants’
`
`motion to compel, “[a] corporation has an affirmative duty to produce a representative who can
`
`answer questions that are within the scope of the matters described in the notice of deposition.”
`
`(D.I. 173 (citing Harris v. New Jersey, 259 F.R.D. 89, 92 (D.N.J. 2007)).) “The duty of
`
`preparation goes beyond the designee’s personal knowledge and matters in which the designee
`
`waspersonally involved. .
`
`.
`
`. If necessary, the deponent must use documents, past employees,or
`
`other resources to obtain responsive information.” Crawford v. George & Lynch, Inc., 19 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 546, 554 (D. Del. 2013). Evolved did not do that. Evolved designated its two
`
`managing directors as 30(b)(6) witnesses. One providedno meaningfulinformation about
`
`Evolved’s derivation ofMM. The other wasable to provide only very limited
`
`information about the determination of a previously-undisclosed, purported “starting-point rate.”
`
`And Evolved shut down completely (on privilege grounds) Defendants’ attempts to learn how
`
`this “starting-point rate” turned into the eventual[J The endresult is that Evolved
`
`wasable during discovery to presentthose facts about [MM that it deemedhelpful to
`
`its case, and shield the remainder.
`
`For these reasons, Evolved should be precluded form presenting any evidence or
`
`argumentat trial about howit derived |] Even limiting Evolved’s evidence to
`
`only that information about which Ms. Divine and Mr. Rochetestified at their depositions would
`
`allow Evolved to capitalize on the selective memoriesof its witnessesand then use privilege as
`
`both a shield and a sword. See CP Kelco United States, Inc. v. Pharmacia Corp., 213 F.R.D.
`
`176, 179 (D. Del. 2003) (“It would be manifestly unfair to allow a party to use the privilege to
`
`shield information which it had deliberately chosen to use offensively”); OBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda
`
`Enters., 277 F.R.D. 676, 681 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (“It would be patently unfair to permit QBEto
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 11 of 32 PagelD #: 23591
`
`/ i|| L ||: | i
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`avoid providing a corporate deposition designee on certain topics (becauseits insured refuses to
`
`cooperate) yet allow it to take a position attrial on those very sameissues by introducing
`
`testimony which Defendant Jorda was unable to learn about during a pre-trial 30(b)(6)
`
`deposition.”). This result would be patently unfair and prejudicial to Defendants.
`
`I.
`
`MOTIONIN LIMINE NO. 2: PRECLUDE DR. COOKLEV AND EVOLVED
`FROM ARGUMENTS, EVIDENCE, AND TESTIMONY REGARDING
`INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
`
`Throughoutfifteen months of fact discovery and two roundsof infringement contentions,
`
`Evolved never once articulated a theory of infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`(“DOE”) beyond a single boilerplate sentence in their final infringement contentionsthat
`
`HE (Briggs Decl.*, Ex. B at 2.) Then, on May 22, 2017—more than a month afterthe
`
`close of fact discovery and nearly three months after Defendants had served their Final Invalidity
`
`Contentions—Evolvedforthefirst time asserted a DOEtheoryQE
`
`a 8 the Infringement Report of Dr.
`
`Todor Cooklev (“Cooklev Report”).> Evolved’s failure to properly disclose its DOE theory
`
`during fact discovery is extremely prejudicial to Defendants. Numerouscourts in this District
`
`and elsewhere have repeatedly precludeda plaintiff from presenting a DOE theory under similar
`
`circumstances. Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court-excludeattrial any argument,
`
`
`4 “Briggs Decl.”refersto the Declaration of Todd M. Briggs in Support of Defendants Apple
`Inc.’s, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s Joint Motions
`In Limine.
`
`> Specifically, the Cooklev Report
`
`(See, e.g., Briggs Decl., Ex. C (Cooklev Report)
`49] 986-990, 1056-1060, 1132-1136, 1301-1305.)
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 12 of 32 PagelD #: 23592
`
`evidence, or testimony from Evolved and/or Dr. Cooklev regarding orrelated to Evolved’s DOE
`
`infringementtheory.
`
`Evolved neverarticulated any DOE infringement theory during fact discovery. (Briggs
`
`Decl., Ex. A at 2; Ex. B at 2). The Court’s Scheduling Order required Evolved to serve Initial
`
`and Final Infringement Contentions on February 12, 2016 and January 27, 2017, respectively.
`
`(D.I. 16, 109). In its 300-page Initial Infringement Contentions,Evolved’s only discussion of
`
`any DOEtheory wasa single conclusory statement that Defendants infringe
`
`EE (BriggsDecl., Ex. A at 2). The
`
`parties then engaged in nearly a year of fact discovery, which included Evolved reviewing source
`
`code for Defendants’ accused products and deposing numerous witnesses regarding the accused
`
`functionality in these products. Evolved then served its Final Infringement Contentions. But
`
`despite the benefits of discovery, Evolved made no change whatsoever to its disclosure ofits
`
`DOEtheory—it included only the samesingle boilerplate statement in its Final Infringement
`
`Contentionsthat it had includedinits Initial Infringement Contentions. (Briggs Decl., Ex. B at
`
`2.) Evolved did not even bother to indicate which limitations of the asserted claimsit believed
`
`that Defendants infringed under its DOE theory.
`
`Evolved’s solitary boilerplate reference to an unspecified DOE theoryis insufficient as a
`
`matter of law and does not preserve a DOEtheoryfor assertion at trial. Another court in this
`
`District ruled late last year in Sonos, Inc. vy. D&M Holdings Inc.that the plaintiff would “not be
`
`permitted to present a doctrine of equivalents theory of infringementattrial, as it did not include
`
`such allegations in its final infringement.contentions, except in the form of a boilerplate
`
`reservation of right to assert the doctrine of equivalents at some later point.” C.A. No. 14-1330-
`
`WCB, 2017 WL 5633204, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2017) (Bryson, J.) (collecting cases). Many
`
`|
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 13 of 32 PagelD #: 23593
`
`other courts in this District and others, and as affirmed by the Federal Circuit, have similarly
`
`precludeda party from offering a DOE theory whereit did not sufficiently disclose the DOE
`
`theory during fact discovery. See, e.g., ViaTech Tech. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., C.A. No. 14-cv-
`
`1226-RGA, 2017 WL 2538570,at *6-7 (D. Del. June 12, 2017), affirmed, ViaTech Techs. Inc. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., No. 2017-2276, 2018 WL 2338136, at *8 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2018) (affirming
`
`waiver dueto “silen[ce] on the matter in [] infringement contentions, save for a catch-all
`
`statement”); Teashot LLC v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., 595 F. App’x. 983, 987 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s finding that party waived doctrine of equivalents theory by
`
`failing to disclose it in infringement contentions); St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v.
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., C.A. No. 04-1436-LPS, 2012 WL 1015993, at *5-8 (D. Del. Mar.
`
`26, 2012), aff'd, 522 F. App’x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (denying motion to supplement infringement
`
`expert report with new theories where they could have been presented before the deadline for
`
`submitting infringement contentions); Xpertuniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 9-157-
`
`RGA,D.I. 608, slip op. at 4-5 (D. Del. Feb 28, 2013) (Andrews,J.) (excluding doctrine of
`
`equivalents theory asserted only in “cursory recitation” and “passing references”) (attached as
`
`Briggs Decl., Ex. M); see also ; Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:16-cv-588,
`
`2017 WL 4517953, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) (doctrine of equivalents theory not disclosed
`in infringement contentions beyondboilerplate excludedas prejudicial); Comcast Cable
`
`Commce’ns, LLC vy. OpenTV, Inc., No. C 16-6180, 2017 WL 2630088, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 19,
`
`2017) (same); Baltimore Aircoil Co. v. SPX Cooling Techs. Inc., No. CCB-13-2053, 2016 WL
`
`4426681, at *15 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2016) (“[P]lace-holder boilerplate language will not suffice”
`
`to preserve a doctrine of equivalents theory of infringement.); Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Accuray,
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`|
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 14 of 32 PagelD #: 23594
`
`Inc., No. 2:10-cv-1043, 2013 WL 3305478, at *2-3 (W.D. Pa. July 1, 2013) (contentions
`
`regarding the doctrine of equivalents cannot be “reserved” until the close of discovery).
`
`Evolved’s failure to disclose its DOE infringementtheory in its Initial and Final
`
`Infringement Contentions significantly prejudiced Defendants by preventing them from
`
`exploring and refuting Evolved’s DOEtheory during fact and expert discovery. Amgen Inc. vy.
`
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, C.A. No. 16-853-MSG, 2018 WL 1885664,at *7 (D. Del. Apr.
`
`19, 2018) (excluding DOEtheory notraised in infringement contentions; recognizing “multiple
`
`ways [a defendant] could have taken a different approachto litigation had [plaintiff] timely
`
`asserted [DOE]”); see also Sycamore, 2017 WL 4517953, at *5 (“party’s loss of an opportunity
`
`to use discovery to explore the opposing party’s theories and the loss of time to develop
`
`responsesto those theories” constitutes prejudice); Dynetix Design Solutions v. Synopsys, Inc.,
`
`No. C11-5973-PSG, 2013 WL 4537838, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (failure to disclose in
`
`infringement contentions “severely prejudiced [defendant’s] ability to refute any DOE theories”).
`
`For instance, Defendants did not have the benefit of Evolved’s DOE theory when deposing
`
`Qualcomm’s technical witnesses, which limited Defendants’ ability to prepare their non-
`
`infringement case. With respect to invalidity, Defendants’ experts were unable to consider
`
`Evolved’s DOEtheory when forming their invalidity opinions. Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes (who
`
`submitted expert opinions on behalf of all Defendants other than Apple), for example, explained
`
`NE (8cies Decl, Ex. D 4176,
`
`Evolved’s failure to disclose its DOE theory hasalready—and continues to—prejudice
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 15 of 32 PagelD #: 23595
`
`Evolved has previously argued to the Court in summary judgmentbriefing that its failure
`
`to include a DOEtheoryin its Final Infringement Contentions should be forgiven because a new
`
`dispute with respect to the meaning of the “dedicated preamble”limitation arose during
`
`summary judgment that did not exist during fact discovery. That argument should be rejected
`
`because it is factually incorrect. The dispute over the meaning ofthe “dedicated preamble”
`
`limitation was not presented to Evolvedfor the first time during summary judgment. For
`
`example, one of Apple’s 30(b)(6) witnesses, Sami Almalfouh, provided detailed testimonyat his
`
`|
`
`
`
`depositioneeee
`
`eee (Jay Decl., Ex. G at 183:10-184:11, 188:11-
`
`189:14.) It is disingenuous for Evolved to claim that the meaning of the “dedicated preamble”
`
`limitation was a “new dispute” that arose during summary judgment.
`
`In its earlier briefing, Evolvedrelied on a decision from the District of Connecticut,
`
`Probatter Sports, LLC vy. Sports Tutor, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-01975-VLB,2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`92107 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2015). Evolved, however, misreads Probatter. The Probatter court
`
`specifically recognized that its opinion “is distinguishable” from cases wherea plaintiff “was
`
`explicitly required by the local rule of the districts in which the case waslitigated to disclose its
`
`theories. of infringement” because in Probatter there “[we]re no local rules on point.” Jd. at *34.
`
`Here, this Court’s Scheduling Order and local District of Delaware precedent applies—Evolved
`
`was required to disclose its DOE theoriesin its Final Infringement Contentions, but failed to do
`
`sO.
`
`In sum, because of Evolved’s untimely disclosure andthe resulting prejudice to
`
`Defendants, the Court should preclude Evolved and its witnesses from presentingat trial any
`
`argument, evidence, or testimony regarding or related to Evolved’s DOE infringementtheory.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00545-JFB-SRF Document 417 Filed 09/06/18 Page 16 of 32 PagelD #: 23596
`
`ii
`
`i i |i:| i
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`;2i i
`
`
`
`I. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: EXCLUDE ANY TESTIMONY REGARDING
`EVIDENCE OF, OR REFERENCE TO, THE PTAB’S DECISION NOT TO
`INSTITUTE IPR PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE °373 PATENT
`
`Defendants expect Evolved to reference the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (““PTAB”)
`
`decision notto institute inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings against the ’373 patent as
`
`evidence of validity of the ’373 patent. The Court should exclude any reference to the PTAB
`
`decisions regarding the ’373 patent becauseit is not relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. To the
`
`extent it has any relevance, the Rule 403 balance here strongly favors exclusion,as the negligible
`
`probative value of the PTAB decision is outweighed bythe risk ofjury confusion and unfair
`
`prejudice to Defendants.
`
`Courts in this district have consistently held that evidence of PTAB proceedings—in
`
`particular the decision notto institute an IPR proceeding—is inadmissible under Rule 403. See,
`
`e.g. Hologic, Inc. and Cytyc Surgical Products, LLC vy. Minerva Surgical, Inc., C.A. No. 15-
`
`1031, 2018 WL 3348998, at *4 (D. Del. July 9, 2018) (Bataillon, J.) (excluding all references to
`
`PTABproceeding); Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. Hyperbranch Medical Technology, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2186677, at *1 (D. Del. May 11, 2018) (same); MIICS &
`
`Partners America Inc. vy. Toshiba Corp., C.A. No. 14-803-RGA,D.I. 557, slip op. at 1-2 (D. Del.
`
`Oct. 12, 2017) (excluding reference to PTAB decision notto institute) (attached as Briggs Decl.,
`
`Ex. K); Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Co., C.A No. 13-843-LPS, 2016 WL 6404111, at *2 (D.
`
`Del. Oct. 27, 2016) (same); Art+ComInnovationpool GMBH y. Google Inc., C.A. No. 14-217-
`
`TBD, D.I. 382, slip op. at 4 (D. Del. May 16, 2016) (Dyk,J.) (attached as Briggs Decl., Ex. L)
`
`(same).
`
`Delaware courts, as well as other district courts, have based their decisions