Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2754
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-MN
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK J. CARLSON IN SUPPORT OF
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES’ RESPONSE TO
`IP BRIDGE’S MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114 Filed 10/29/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2755
`
`I Erik J. Carlson, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, counsel for Defendant
`
`OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”) in the above-referenced action. I submit this
`
`declaration in support of OmniVision Technology’s Response to IP Bridge’s Motion to Amend
`
`Scheduling Order. The matters set forth herein are based upon my personal knowledge, and, if
`
`called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
`
`2.
`
`Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the cover sheet of Plaintiff’s
`
`First Amended Infringement Contentions dated March 23, 2018.
`
`3.
`
`Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(1)
`
`Deposition of John Li, dated September 26, 2018.
`
`4.
`
`Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(1)
`
`Deposition of Vincent Chew, dated September 26, 2018.
`
`5.
`
`Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a chain of emails on which I
`
`was copied between counsel for IP Bridge and counsel for OmniVision. The earliest email in the
`
`chain is a September 26, 2018 email from IP Bridge counsel Sam Joyner regarding IP Bridge’s
`
`motion to amend the scheduling order. That email indicates IP Bridge’s intent to file a motion to
`
`amend because “IP Bridge’s expert disclosures are due forty days after the October 31, 2018
`
`Markman hearing . . . .” The email further reflects IP Bridge’s understanding that the Court’s
`
`form scheduling order indicates the Court aims to issue its claim construction order “within sixty
`
`(60) days of the conclusion of the claim construction hearing.” The next email in the chain is a
`
`September 26, 2018 email from OmniVision counsel Jose Villarreal asking for the basis of the
`
`requested relief. The next email in the chain is a September 27, 2018 email from IP Bridge
`
`counsel Sam Joyner stating: “Simply put, the Scheduling Order is unworkable.”
`
`CARLSON DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-MN
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114 Filed 10/29/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2756
`
`6.
`
`I participated in an October 17, 2018 telephonic meet and confer between counsel
`
`for IP Bridge and counsel for OmniVision. During the meet and confer, counsel for OmniVision
`
`asked IP Bridge to explain the relevance of documents from other cases involving different
`
`patents, which IP Bridge requested in its first, second, and third sets of requests for production.
`
`Counsel for IP Bridge refused to provide any explanation.
`
`7.
`
`On the October 17, 2018 telephonic meet and confer referenced above,
`
`OmniVision’s counsel told IP Bridge’s counsel that IP Bridge’s proposed schedule was not
`
`reasonable because the seven-month extension was not justified and because IP Bridge’s
`
`proposed schedule had reply expert reports, completion of expert depositions, and dispositive
`
`motions all due on the same day. OmniVision’s counsel proposed an alternative schedule
`
`modification involving an extension of around 6 weeks to allow the parties to complete
`
`deposition discovery but not serve additional discovery requests on each other. OmniVision’s
`
`counsel further proposed
`
`that OmniVision would not withhold documents based on
`
`OmniVision’s timeliness objection to IP Bridge’s request for production that were served less
`
`than 30 days before the October 8, 2018 document production deadline. IP Bridge’s counsel
`
`indicated that it would not agree to OmniVision’s proposal.
`
`8.
`
`Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a December 4, 2017 letter from
`
`OmniVision counsel Henry Pan to IP Bridge Counsel Michael W. Shore regarding the
`
`production of core technical documents for nine representative products. The letter indicates:
`
`“The core technical documents in this production are for products that are representative of all of
`
`the products that have been accused in this case as identified in Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge
`
`1’s (“IPB”) initial identification of accused products and its amended complaint [D.I. 45]. These
`
`representative products are OV4689, OV5650, OV8850, OV8858, OV8865, OV10640,
`
`CARLSON DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-MN
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114 Filed 10/29/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2757
`
`OV16860, and OV23850. Additionally, OV4688 shares many of the same characteristics as
`
`OV4689; thus, documents discussing OV4688 have been produced for representative product
`
`OV4689.”
`
`9.
`
`Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an August 9, 2018 letter from
`
`OmniVision counsel Henry Pan to IP Bridge Counsel Ari Rafilson regarding the production of
`
`core technical documents for four additional representative products. The letter indicates:
`
`“Although OmniVision had previously identified representative products in this case, through the
`
`course of discovery and diligently researching and identifying the members of the accused
`
`product families, OmniVision believes that these additional representative products are needed to
`
`represent the broad scope of products that IPB has accused in its initial and amended
`
`infringement contentions, which IPB has refused to reduce despite the limited number of
`
`products for which it has actually provided infringement charts.”
`
`10.
`
`Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Defendant OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc.’s Second Set of Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Godo
`
`Kaisha IP Bridge I’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-10.), which were served on October 25,
`
`2018.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed in Los Angeles, California on October 29, 2018
`
`/s/ Erik J. Carlson
`
`Erik J. Carlson
`
`CARLSON DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-MN
`
`-3-
`
`