Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 101 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1767
`
`
`
`October 17, 2018
`
`
`
` Stamatios Stamoulis
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`
`VIA HAND DELIVERY AND CM/ECF
`The Hon. Maryellen Noreika
`United States District Court
`844 North King Street, Unit 26
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
` Re: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 16-290 (MN)
`
`Dear Judge Noreika:
`
`
`The parties submit this letter pursuant to Your Honor’s Order (D.I. 85).
`
`Live Testimony.
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position: At the October 31, 2018 claim construction hearing, defendant
`OmniVision Technologies, Inc. will argue that four of the ten disputed claim terms to be
`presented are indefinite. Because of the dispositive nature of those arguments, in addition to
`those OmniVision is advancing in its claim construction briefing and the expert declarations
`attached thereto, plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 respectfully requests Your Honor’s
`permission to present expert testimony from Dr. Albert Theuwissen at the hearing. IP
`Bridge contends live testimony is appropriate to rebut OmniVision’s arguments and any
`expert testimony offered via a declaration. OmniVision opposes IP Bridge’s request.
`
`Defendant’s Position: IP Bridge has had ample opportunity to rely on and submit
`expert testimony to the Court regarding the indefinite claim terms in its patents. IP Bridge
`has known since at least May 25, 2018 that OmniVision will argue the terms are indefinite.
`Moreover, IP Bridge asked and OmniVision agreed to stipulate to an adjustment of the
`briefing schedule to accommodate the schedule of IP Bridge’s counsel and its expert Dr.
`Theuwissen. D.I. 72 (“due to scheduling conflicts of counsel for Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP
`Bridge 1 in other matters, and due to its expert's limited availability under the current
`schedule”). Each party had the opportunity to rebut the other’s expert with declaration
`testimony of its own expert, during the four-round briefing period. IP Bridge actually did
`serve an expert declaration from Dr. Theuwissen with its reply brief served after
`OmniVision’s answering brief. Joint Brief App. 0598–0659. Briefing is now closed and the
`hearing is two weeks away. The only apparent reason for IP Bridge’s request would appear
`to be for it to elicit testimony from Dr. Theuwissen that goes beyond the scope of his
`declaration that was served in accordance with the briefing schedule. IP Bridge’s request is
`prejudicial to OmniVision because OmniVision would not have an adequate opportunity to
`respond to any new opinions in Dr. Theuwissen’s live testimony through briefing, expert
`declaration, or at the hearing. Therefore, OmniVision respectfully opposes IP Bridge’s
`request for leave.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 101 Filed 10/17/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1768
`
`The Hon. Maryellen Noreika
`October 17, 2018
`Page 2
`
`Time Allotted.
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: IP Bridge respectfully requests 2 hours per side to present
`argument and testimony at the October 31, 2018 claim construction hearing.
`
`Defendant’s Position: OmniVision respectfully submits that 90 minutes per side to
`present argument and testimony at the October 31, 2018 claim construction hearing is
`appropriate if the Court denies IP Bridge leave to present live testimony.
`
`We are available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have any questions
`
`regarding the foregoing.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Stamatios Stamoulis
`Stamatios Stamoulis (#4606)
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`(302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`