Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 67 PageID #: 2758
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 67 PageID #: 2758
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 2 of 67 PageID #: 2759
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IPB”) provides its First Amended Infringement
`
`Contentions relating the accused products to the asserted claims.
`
`IPB expressly reserves the right to its infringement contentions. For example, and without
`
`limitation, IPB’s counsel and expert reviewed OmniVision’s materials this week, and have not yet
`
`received materials from that review. Further, Henry Pan stated, in an email dated March 14, 2018,
`
`that OmniVision is “concerned with IP Bridge’s basis for its accusations for multiple reasons.” In
`
`that email, Mr. Pan provided a list of products that “do not belong to any accused product line.”
`
`That matter is addressed in these amended contentions. On March 14, 2018, IPB’s counsel sent
`
`Mr. Pan an email stating that, other than the identification of products, “if OmniVision has other
`
`concerns regarding IPB’s infringement contentions, it should identify those concerns, with
`
`specificity, before Dr. Theuwissen’s review of materials next week.” OmniVision has, thus far,
`
`failed to provide any detail regarding any remaining objections it may have. Further, to date,
`
`OmniVision has refused to provide a substantive response to IPB’s Interrogatory No. 1, which
`
`requests information regarding members of each of the product families listed below. For clarity,
`
`IPB accuses each member of each product family listed herein. IPB further accuses any and all
`
`stacked die (i.e. PureCel-S and PureCel Plus-S) products identified as accused products in the case
`
`currently pending between the parties in the Northern District of California. IPB intends to amend
`
`its contentions and/or its list of accused products once OmniVision provides a substantive response
`
`to Interrogatory No. 1.
`
`IPB’s First Amended Contentions
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 3 of 67 PageID #: 2760
`
`Accordingly, IPB is not currently amending Exhibits 1 through 25 of its infringement
`
`contentions, served on January 22, 2018 (“Initial Contentions”) and those charts are incorporated
`
`by reference herein. With its Initial Contentions, IPB provided, as Exhibits 1 through 25, at least
`
`one chart demonstrating infringement by at least one product per product family accused of
`
`infringing each asserted patent. The product families and claims listed and asserted below replaced
`
`those provided by IPB in its initial identification of asserted claims for each product family, served
`
`on November 3, 2017. For clarity, IPB accuses all members of each of the product families listed
`
`below as infringing the patents and claims listed below. Exhibits 1 through 25 are summarized
`
`below.
`
`Patent Number
`6,538,324
`6,538,324
`6,709,950
`6,709,950
`
`6,794,677
`
`8,084,796
`
`8,106,431
`
`8,106,431
`8,378,401
`
`8,378,401
`
`RE41,867
`
`Accused Product Families/Exhibit(s) Claims Infringed
`OmniBSI-2: Exhibit 1 (OV4689*)
`1, 5, 9
`PureCel: Exhibit 2 (OV8858*)
`1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9
`OmniBSI-2: Exhibit 3 (OV4689*)
`17-19, 21
`PureCel: Exhibit 4 (OV8858*)
`12, 13, 15, 17-19, 21
`OmniBSI: Exhibit 5 (OV5650*)
`OmniBSI-2: Exhibit 6 (OV8850*)
`PureCel: Exhibit 7 (OV8858*)
`PureCel: Exhibit 8 (OV8858*)
`PureCel Plus-S: Exhibit 9 (OV16860*),
`Exhibit 10 (OV16880)
`PureCel-S: Exhibit 11 (OV23850*)
`OmniBSI: Exhibit 12 (OV5650*)
`OmniBSI-2: Exhibit 13 (OV8850*)
`PureCel: Exhibit 14 (OV8858*)
`PureCel-S: Exhibit 15 (OV16860*)
`PureCel Plus-S: Exhibit 16 (OV16880)
`Exhibit 17 (OV23850*)
`OmniBSI-2: Exhibit 18 (OV8850*)
`PureCel: Exhibit 19 (OV8858*)
`PureCel Plus-S: Exhibit 20
`(OV16860*), Exhibit 21 (OV16880)
`PureCel-S: Exhibit 22 (OV23850*)
`OmniBSI: Exhibit 23 (OV5650*)
`OmniBSI-2: Exhibit 24 (OV8850*)
`
`1, 2, 4, 5
`
`1-4
`
`5
`
`1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12
`1, 3, 8, 29
`
`1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 29
`
`11, 13
`
`
`* This product was identified as representative by OmniVision. IPB expressly reserves the right
`to propose other products as representative.
`
`IPB’s First Amended Contentions
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 4 of 67 PageID #: 2761
`
`Patent Number
`
`Accused Product Families/Exhibit(s) Claims Infringed
`PureCel: Exhibit 25 (OV8858*)
`
`For each of the product families listed above, IPB specifically identifies the following
`
`family members as infringing the claims listed above. IPB notes that these members have been
`
`updated since IPB’s Initial Contentions. IPB further notes that, to date, OmniVision has refused to
`
`provide a substantive response requesting information on additional products in response to IPB’s
`
`Interrogatory No. 1. IPB expects that discovery will show that there are additional members of the
`
`accused product families, and IPB intends to accuse those products. IPB further incorporates by
`
`reference and specifically accuses all products accused in the Northern District of California case
`
`currently pending between the parties. The following identification of specific products is made
`
`based on publicly available information.
`
`Product Family
`OmniBSI
`
`OMNI BSI-2
`
`PureCel
`
`PureCel-S
`PureCel Plus-S
`
`
`
`Family Members
`OV2665, OV2720, , OV2722, OV3660, , OV5633, OV5640, OV5642,
`OV5645, OV5647, OV5648, OV5650, OV5653, OV5656, OV5658,
`OV5695, OV6946, OV6948, OV7695, OV7699, OV7727, , OV8810,
`OV8812, OV8820, OV8825, OV9674, OV9724, OV9726, OV9728,
`OV9740, OV10640, OV10642, OV10650, OV10810, OV12825,
`OV14810, OV14825, , OX02A10, OX2A10, OX01A10, OX1A10
`OV2718, OV2724, OV2770, OV2775, OV2775-Ards, , OV4682,
`OV4682 RGB IR, OV4685, OV4688, OV4689, , OV5680, OV5690,
`OV5693, OV8830, OV8835, OV8850, OV8865, OV9716, OV9760,
`OV9762, OV9770, OV10823, OV12830, OV16820, OV16825
`OS02A1Q, OS05A10, OS05A20, OS08A10, OV13853, OV2281,
`OV2732, OV2740, OV5670, OV5675, OV8856, OV8858, OV9734
`OV13860, OV16850, OV21840, OV23850
`OV12890, OV12895, OV13870, OV13A10, OV13A1Q, OV16860,
`OV16880, OV16885, OV16885-4C, OV16B10, OV20880, OV20880-4C
`
`IPB’s First Amended Contentions
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 5 of 67 PageID #: 2762
`
`Dated: March 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ari B. Rafilson
`Stamatios Stamoulis (#4606)
`Richard C. Weinblatt (#5080)
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`Tel: (302) 999-1540
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`Michael W. Shore (pro hac vice)
`Alfonso Garcia Chan (pro hac vice)
`Joseph F. DePumpo (pro hac vice)
`Russell J. DePalma (pro hac vice)
`Christopher L. Evans (pro hac vice)
`Andrew M. Howard (pro hac vice)
`Ari B. Rafilson (pro hac vice)
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`mshore@shorechan.com
`achan@shorechan.com
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`rdepalma@shorechan.com
`cevans@shorechan.com
`ahoward@shorechan.com
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`
`OHASHI & HORN LLP
`Hiromasa Ohashi (pro hac vice)
`Jeff J. Horn, Jr. (pro hac vice)
`Cody A. Kachel (pro hac vice)
`1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: (214) 743-4170
`ohashi@ohashiandhorn.com
`horn@ohashiandhorn.com
`ckachel@ohashiandhorn.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPB’s First Amended Contentions
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 6 of 67 PageID #: 2763
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 23, 2018 the foregoing document was
`
`served upon the following counsel via electronic mail:
`
`David E. Moore
`Bindu A. Palapura
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne
`Hercules Plaza, 5th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Edward G. Poplawski
`Erik J. Carlson
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`ecarlson@wsgr.com
`
`James C. Yoon
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`
`Henry T. Pan
`Jose C. Villarreal
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`900 S. Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, 5th Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`hpan@wsgr.com
`jvillarreal@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ari B. Rafilson
`Ari B. Rafilson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPB’s First Amended Contentions
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 7 of 67 PageID #: 2764
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 7 of 67 PageID #: 2764
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 8 of 67 PageID #: 2765
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
` No. 1:16-cv-00290 (MN)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNLOGIES,
`INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 30(B)(1) DEPOSITION OF JOHN LI
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), Godo
`
`Kaisha IP Bride 1 intends to take the deposition of John Li. The deposition will take place on
`
`Monday, October 15, 2018, beginning at 9:00 a.m. local time, at Allen Matkins, 3 Embarcadero
`
`Center, 12th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111, or another mutually agreed upon time and
`
`location, and will continue until completed. The deposition will be conducted before a person
`
`authorized to administer oaths and shall be recorded by stenographic means and videotape.
`
`
`
`
`
`IP BRIDGE’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
`JOHN LI
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 9 of 67 PageID #: 2766
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`/s/ Samuel E. Joyner
`Stamatios Stamoulis (#4606)
`Richard C. Weinblatt (#5080)
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`Tel: (302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Godo
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`** Admitted pro hac vice
`
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`Michael W. Shore** (mshore@shorechan.com)
`Alfonso Garcia Chan** (achan@shorechan.com)
`Joseph F. DePumpo** (jdepumpo@shorechan.com)
`Christopher L. Evans** (cevans@shorechan.com)
`Andrew M. Howard** (ahoward@shorechan.com)
`Ari B. Rafilson** (arafilson@shorechan.com)
`William D. Ellerman** (wellerman@shorechan.com)
`Samuel E. Joyner** (sjoyner@shorechan.com)
`Chijioke E. Offor** (coffor@shorechan.com)
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`
`OHASHI & HORN LLP
`Hiromasa Ohashi** (ohashi@ohashiandhorn.com)
`Jeff J. Horn, Jr.** (horn@ohashiandhorn.com)
`Cody A. Kachel** (ckachel@ohashiandhorn.com)
`1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: (214) 743-4170
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`
`
`IP BRIDGE’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
`JOHN LI
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 10 of 67 PageID #: 2767
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 26, 2018, the attached document was
`served, via electronic transmission, upon the following attorneys of record:
`
`David E. Moore
`Bindu A. Palapura
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 5th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`James C. Yoon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 9430
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`Edward G. Poplawski
`Erik Carlson
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`633 West Fifth Street, Ste 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`ecarlson@wsgr.com
`
`
`Jose C. Villarreal
`Henry Pan
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`900 South Capital of Texas Hwy
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`jvillarreal@wsgr.com
`hpan@wsgr.com
`
`/s/ Samuel E. Joyner
`Chijioke E. Offor
`
`IP BRIDGE’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
`JOHN LI
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 11 of 67 PageID #: 2768
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 11 of 67 PageID #: 2768
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 12 of 67 PageID #: 2769
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
` No. 1:16-cv-00290 (MN)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNLOGIES,
`INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 30(B)(1) DEPOSITION OF VINCENT CHEW
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), Godo
`
`Kaisha IP Bride 1 intends to take the deposition of Vincent Chew. The deposition will take place
`
`on Monday, October 15, 2018, beginning at 9:00 a.m. local time, at Allen Matkins, 3 Embarcadero
`
`Center, 12th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111, or another mutually agreed upon time and
`
`location, and will continue until completed. The deposition will be conducted before a person
`
`authorized to administer oaths and shall be recorded by stenographic means and videotape.
`
`
`
`
`
`IP BRIDGE’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
`VINCENT CHEW
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 13 of 67 PageID #: 2770
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`/s/ Chijioke E. Offor
`Stamatios Stamoulis (#4606)
`Richard C. Weinblatt (#5080)
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`Tel: (302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Godo
`Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`** Admitted pro hac vice
`
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`Michael W. Shore** (mshore@shorechan.com)
`Alfonso Garcia Chan** (achan@shorechan.com)
`Joseph F. DePumpo** (jdepumpo@shorechan.com)
`Christopher L. Evans** (cevans@shorechan.com)
`Andrew M. Howard** (ahoward@shorechan.com)
`Ari B. Rafilson** (arafilson@shorechan.com)
`William D. Ellerman** (wellerman@shorechan.com)
`Samuel E. Joyner** (sjoyner@shorechan.com)
`Chijioke E. Offor** (coffor@shorechan.com)
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`
`OHASHI & HORN LLP
`Hiromasa Ohashi** (ohashi@ohashiandhorn.com)
`Jeff J. Horn, Jr.** (horn@ohashiandhorn.com)
`Cody A. Kachel** (ckachel@ohashiandhorn.com)
`1120 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: (214) 743-4170
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`
`
`IP BRIDGE’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
`VINCENT CHEW
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 14 of 67 PageID #: 2771
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 26, 2018, the attached document was
`served, via electronic transmission, upon the following attorneys of record:
`
`David E. Moore
`Bindu A. Palapura
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 5th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`James C. Yoon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 9430
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`Edward G. Poplawski
`Erik Carlson
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`633 West Fifth Street, Ste 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`ecarlson@wsgr.com
`
`
`Jose C. Villarreal
`Henry Pan
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`900 South Capital of Texas Hwy
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`jvillarreal@wsgr.com
`hpan@wsgr.com
`
`/s/ Chijioke E. Offor
`Chijioke E. Offor
`
`IP BRIDGE’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF
`VINCENT CHEW
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 15 of 67 PageID #: 2772
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 15 of 67 PageID #: 2772
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 16 of 67 PageID #: 2773
`
`Carlson, Erik
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Jose,
`
`Sam Joyner <sjoyner@ShoreChan.com>
`Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:26 AM
`Villarreal, Jose
`Chiji Offor; WSGR - OVT/IP Bridge; TeamIPB_Omni_DE_290
`RE: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-290 (D. Del.)--IP Bridge's
`Motion to Amend Scheduling Order
`
`Simply put, the Scheduling Order is unworkable. If OmniVision disagrees, let us know so we can go ahead
`and file IP Bridge’s motion as opposed.
`
`Thanks,
`Sam
`
`From: Villarreal, Jose <jvillarreal@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 5:11 PM
`To: Sam Joyner <sjoyner@ShoreChan.com>
`Cc: Chiji Offor <coffor@ShoreChan.com>; OVT IPBridge <OVT_IPBridge@wsgr.com>; TeamIPB_Omni_DE_290
`<TeamIPB_Omni_DE_290@ShoreChan.com>
`Subject: RE: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-290 (D. Del.)--IP Bridge's Motion to Amend
`Scheduling Order
`
`Sam
`What is the basis for the proposed requested relief?
`Thanks
`Jose
`
`From: Sam Joyner [mailto:sjoyner@ShoreChan.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 4:28 PM
`To: Villarreal, Jose
`Cc: Chiji Offor; WSGR - OVT/IP Bridge; TeamIPB_Omni_DE_290
`Subject: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-290 (D. Del.)--IP Bridge's Motion to Amend
`Scheduling Order
`
`Jose,
`
`Given that IP Bridge’s expert disclosures are due forty days after the October 31, 2018 Markman hearing,
`IP Bridge is going to ask Judge Noreika to amend the Scheduling Order as follows:
`
`Existing
`Date
`
`New Date
`
`Event
`
`11/6/2018
`
`6/3/2019
`
`Discovery period ends
`
`12/10/2018 6/17/2019
`
`IPB's deadline to (1) serve Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures and
`written reports and (2) identify dates/times that experts are
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 17 of 67 PageID #: 2774
`
`available for deposition
`
`1/25/2019
`
`7/8/2019
`
`OmniVision's deadline to (1) serve Rule 26(a)(2) rebuttal expert
`disclosures and written reports and (2) identify dates/times that
`rebuttal experts are available for deposition
`
`2/15/2019
`
`7/29/2019
`
`IPB's deadline to serve reply expert reports
`
`4/24/2019
`
`7/29/2019
`
`Parties' deadline to complete expert depositions
`
`5/8/2019
`
`7/29/2019
`
`5/24/2019
`
`6/23/2019
`
`7/23/2019
`
`Parties' deadline to (1) submit case dispositive motions (which
`may not be filed more than ten days before this deadline
`without leave of the Court) and (2) object to expert testimony
`
`Parties' deadline to serve fact witness list (including any expert
`witness who is expected to give fact testimony)
`
`Parties' deadline to serve rebuttal fact witness list
`
`Parties' deadline to depose any fact witness not previously
`deposed
`
`This will ensure the parties have ample time to complete fact discovery and prepare their expert
`disclosures after the Court issues its claim construction order, which according to the Court’s form
`Scheduling Order will occur “within sixty (60) days of the conclusion of the claim construction hearing.”
`
`By close of business on Monday, October 1, please let us know if OmniVision will agree to the
`amendments above. Otherwise, we will indicate in the motion that OmniVision opposes the requested
`relief.
`
`Thanks,
`Sam
`
`Samuel E. Joyner
`Partner
`
`D 214.593.9124 / C 214.923.1543 / F 214.593.9111
`SJoyner@ShoreChan.com / ShoreChan.com
`
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
`901 Main Street / Suite 3300 / Dallas, Texas 75202
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileges, and is
`Confidential. It is intended only for the individuals or entities designated as recipients above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
`copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the
`sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously
`transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 18 of 67 PageID #: 2775
`
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole
`use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by
`others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and
`permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 19 of 67 PageID #: 2776
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 19 of 67 PageID #: 2776
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 20 of 67 PageID #: 2777
`
`
`
`900 South Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, Texas 78746-5546
`Phone 512.338.5400
`Fax 512.338.5499
`www.wsgr.com
`
`December 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Michael W. Shore
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`
`
`Re: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., United States District
`Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:16-cv-000290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`Dear Mr. Shore:
`
`
` Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order [D.I. 37], OmniVision Technologies, Inc.
`(“OmniVision”) hereby produces its core technical documents. Enclosed please find an FTP link
`containing documents Bates stamped, IPB1-OMNI 00000001 – IPB1-OMNI 00007150. This link
`contains documents that have been designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`ONLY, and should be treated in accordance with D. Del. LR 26.2 until the Court enters a protective
`order. Accordingly, disclosure shall be limited to members and employees of your firm who have
`entered an appearance or been admitted pro hac vice. Documents and information designated
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY must not be disclosed to anyone else,
`including IP Bridge’s experts or consultants, until the Court enters a stipulated protective order that
`authorizes such disclosure. Please note that this letter has also been marked HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.
`
`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, OV16860,
`and OV23850. Additionally, OV4688 shares many of the same characteristics as OV4689; thus,
`documents discussing OV4688 have been produced for representative product OV4689.
`
`We are currently seeking consent from third parties to produce additional core technical
`documents and will produce them after receiving the permission to do so from these third parties.
`
`In addition, core technical document Source Code is available for inspection on reasonable
`notice at 601 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94304. OmniVision designates this information
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE. In accordance with D. Del. LR 26.2, until the
`Court enters a protective order, access will only be granted to members and employees of your firm
`who have entered an appearance or been admitted pro hac vice. Access will not be granted to
`
`AUSTIN BEIJING BRUSSELS HONG KONG LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN DIEGO
`SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, DC WILMINGTON, DE
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 21 of 67 PageID #: 2778
`
`Michael W. Shore
`December 4, 2017
`Page 2
`
`
`anyone else, including IP Bridge’s experts or consultants, until the Court enters a stipulated
`protective order that authorizes such access.
`
`Based on representations by your firm, we understand that none of Plaintiff’s trial counsel
`are involved in prosecution of patents. If that understanding is incorrect, please advise immediately
`and prevent any disclosure of confidential information to any member or employee of your firm who
`participates in prosecution. Such members or employees will not be permitted to access
`OmniVision’s Source Code.
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s Henry Pan
`Henry Pan
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 22 of 67 PageID #: 2779
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 22 of 67 PageID #: 2779
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 23 of 67 PageID #: 2780
`
`900 South Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, Texas 78746-5546
`Phone 512.338.5400
`Fax 512.338.5499
`www.wsgr.com
`
`
`
`August 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Ari Rafilson
`arafilson@ShoreChan.com
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`
`
`Re: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., United States District
`Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:16-cv-000290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`Dear Mr. Rafilson:
`
`
`OmniVision hereby produces core technical documents for the following additional
`representative products: OV10820, OV13870, OV16820, and OX03A10.
`
`Enclosed please find an FTP link containing documents Bates stamped, IPB1-OMNI
`00008752 – IPB1-OMNI 00011180. This link contains documents that have been designated
`“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” and should be treated in accordance
`with the protective order in this case. Please note that this letter has also been designated “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
`
`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.
`
`We are currently seeking consent from third parties to produce additional core technical
`documents and will produce them after receiving the permission to do so from these third parties.
`
`In addition, core technical document source code is available for inspection on reasonable
`notice at 601 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, though this location can be changed to
`another WSGR office if necessary. OmniVision designates this information “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE,” and it should be treated in accordance with the protective
`order in this case.
`
`
`
`
`AUSTIN BEIJING BRUSSELS HONG KONG LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO SAN DIEGO
`SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, DC WILMINGTON, DE
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 24 of 67 PageID #: 2781
`
`Ari Rafilson
`August 9, 2018
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s Henry Pan
`Henry Pan
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 25 of 67 PageID #: 2782
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 25 of 67 PageID #: 2782
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 26 of 67 PageID #: 2783
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-MN
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S SECOND
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
`AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE I’S
`FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`DEFENDANT OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE I’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
`
`OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”) hereby submits its second supplemental
`
`responses and objections to Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s (“IPB”) First Set of
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1-10).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The following responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action.
`
`Each response is provided subject to all appropriate objections (including, without limitation,
`
`objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) that
`
`would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the statement were made by a
`
`witness present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds therefore are reserved
`
`and may be interposed at the time of trial.
`
`OMNIVISION’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO IP
`BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 27 of 67 PageID #: 2784
`
`The following responses are based on the facts and information presently known and
`
`available to OmniVision. The responses refer only to those contentions that have been asserted to
`
`date, based on the facts now known to OmniVision. Discovery, investigation, research, and
`
`analysis are ongoing in this case and may disclose the existence of additional facts, add meaning
`
`to known facts, establish entirely new factual conclusions or legal contentions, or possibly lead to
`
`additions, variations, and changes to these responses. OmniVision reserves the right to change or
`
`supplement these responses as additional facts are discovered, revealed, recalled, or otherwise
`
`ascertained.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`In addition to any specifically stated objections, each of OmniVision’s responses herein is
`
`subject to and incorporates the following general objections:
`
`1.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories and the definitions to the extent
`
`they purport to impose obligations greater or more extensive than those required by the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Delaware, or other applicable law.
`
`2.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories and definitions to the extent
`
`they purport to request information that cannot be found in the course of a reasonable search.
`
`3.
`
`OmniVision’s partial response to any interrogatory is not a waiver of its objection
`
`or right to object to the interrogatory, or any part thereof, or to any additional, supplemental or
`
`further interrogatory or part thereof, but is instead offered in an effort to resolve a potential
`
`discovery dispute.
`
`OMNIVISION’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO IP
`BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 114-1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 28 of 67 PageID #: 2785
`
`4.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks
`
`information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense raised in this litigation, nor
`
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`5.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is vague or
`
`ambiguous.
`
`6.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is unreasonably
`
`cumulative or duplicative of other discovery requests, or seeks information that is obtainable
`
`from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`7.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is overly broad,
`
`fails to reasonably identify the information sought, is unduly burdensome, and is posed for
`
`improper purposes, including, without limitation, embarrass