Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 4939
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 DHEdSAZ/ll/lS Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 4939
`
`STAM OULIS 8: WEINBLATT LLC
`°‘
`Intellectual Property (9' Delaware Corporate Law
`
`November 29, 2018
`
`VIA CM/ECF
`
`The Hon. Maryellen Noreika
`United States District Court
`
`844 North King Street, Unit 26
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Stamatios Stamoulis
`
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`
`I-IIGI-ILY CONFIDENTIAL-
`ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY-
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Re: Godo Kaisha 11’ Bridge 1 (“IPB ”) v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OVT”)
`
`Dear Judge Noreika:
`
`Pursuant to Your Honor’s leave, IPB submits this response to OVT’s November 28, 2019
`
`letter brief. Fir—st, the only issue properly before the Court is whether there is a legal basis to compel
`
`IPB to translate Japanese—language financial reports and investor materials produced in response
`
`to OVT’s document request under Rule 34. Because there is not, OVT’s request should be rejected.
`
`Second, OVT’s demand for IPB’s counsel to provide all oftheir discovery-related communications
`
`with third parties—i.e._, the very end—customers that OVT refuses to identify—is another attempt
`
`by OVT to prevent IPB from obtaining evidence of direct infringement. Given that counsel for
`
`IPB is following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and providing notice as soon as they confirm
`
`when and where third party depositions will take place, the Court need not facilitate further
`
`obstruction by OVT’s counsel. Third, the parties never conferred concerning the substance of
`
`IPB’s amended ’677 patent claim chart or IPB’s supplemental responses to OVT’s ROG Nos. 8
`
`and 14. During the parties’ November 9 conference, OVT asked IPB to supplement these
`
`responses, and as promised IPB did so by November 16. OVT’s attempt to raise new complaints
`
`without so much as an attempt to conference is a blatant violation of Your Honor’s directive
`
`regarding discovery disputes.
`
`There is no basis to comgel translation of foreign-language documents in this case. On
`
`page 3 of its letter, OVT asks the Court to compel translation of Japanese-language financial
`
`reports and investor materials IPB produced “at Bates nos. 290-IPB-OVT004967-004968, 290-
`
`IPB-OVT005413-0054l4, 290-IPB—OVT007874-007904, and 290-IPB—OVT007919-008068.”
`
`For at least two reasons, this request must be denied. First, IBP produced the at-issue documents
`
`on February 26, 2018 under Rule 34 in response to OVT’s RFP No. 72, which seeks financial
`
`reports and investor materials. See Ex. 1 (attached to the enclosed Declaration ofChijioke E. Offor)
`
`at 1; Ex. 2. IPB never invoked Rule 33(d), implicitly or implicitly, when it identified these
`
`documents in its answer to ROG 15, which explicitly calls for an answer that “include[s] a specific
`
`identification of the relevant documents (by production number).” Ex. 1 at 2. Identifying
`
`documents in an answer to an interrogatory that explicitly calls for such identification is not an
`
`invocation of Rule 33(d). Brown v. Bridges, No. 12-4947, 2015 WL 410062, at *14 (ND. Tex.
`
`TWO FOX POINT CENTRE
`
`6 Denny Road I Suite 307 I VWlmington.DE19809 I T 302 999 - 1540
`www.mdehwmom
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 4940
`
`The Hon. Maryellen Noreika
`November 29, 2018
`Page 2
`
`Jan. 30, 2015) (“The interrogatory calls for Defendant to point to and describe documents, but,
`regardless, Defendant did not invoke Rule 33(d), explicitly or implicitly.”).
`
`Second, OVT identifies no special circumstance (because none exist) warranting the relief
`sought. The table attached to Exhibit 1 makes clear that IBP produced the at-issue Japanese-
`language financial reports and investor materials in response to OVT’s RFP. No. 72 and has never
`invoked Rule 33(d), explicitly or implicitly, when identifying these documents in its answers to
`OVT’s ROG 15. Thus, there is no basis to compel translation. See In re Puerto Rico Elec. Power
`Auth., 687 F.2d 501, 506-07 (1st Cir. 1982) (holding district court lacked the authority to order
`plaintiffs to pay to translate documents produced in response to document requests absent special
`circumstances); Invensas Corp. v. Rensas Elecs. Corp., No. 11-448, 2013 WL 12146531, *5-6 (D.
`Del. May 8, 2013) (recognizing “there is a clear difference between a party moving to compel
`translation of foreign-language documents simply produced in response to requests for those
`specific documents, and a party moving to compel translation of foreign-language documents
`produced in response to interrogatories, where such production is an alternative ‘option’ to
`answering the questions under the dictates of Rule 33(d)”); Nature’s Plus Nordic A/S v. Nat.
`Organics, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 437, 440-442 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting at shared cost to both parties
`defendant’s motion to compel translation of documents produced pursuant to Rule 33(d), but
`denying defendant’s motion to compel translation of documents produced pursuant to Rule 34);
`Contretas v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd. of Japan, No. 98-442, 1999 WL 33290667, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr.
`2, 1999) (“Therefore, the Court finds that, absent special circumstances, there is no authority for
`compelling the defendants to translate discovery documents.”); In re Fialuridine (FIAU) Prod.
`Liab. Litig., 163 F.R.D. 386, 387 (D.D.C. 1995) (recognizing that under Puerto Rico Electric, “a
`requesting party cannot impose translation costs on the producing party”). As this case does not
`involve Rule 33(d) or any special circumstances, there is no basis to compel translation of
`Japanese-language financial reports and investor materials produced in response to OVT’s Rule
`34 requests.
`
`OVT is attempting to prevent IPB from obtaining evidence of direct infringement. As an
`initial matter, IPB has not attempted to subpoena documents from any third party—only testimony.
`OVT cites no rule (because none exist) requiring IPB to provide prior notice before attempting to
`subpoena testimony from a third party. Rule 45(a)(4)’s prior notice requirement applies only where
`a subpoena “commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or
`tangible things.” Nor is there any rule requiring that IPB’s counsel keep OVT’s counsel informed
`of discussions with a third party who has not agreed to make itself available for a deposition. Here,
`IPB has immediately notified OVT when a third party has agreed to be deposed, and promptly
`provided OVT with a copy of the testimony only subpoena to be enforced, at the same time
`providing OVT counsel with contact information for the third party’s attorney. See Ex. 3 at 1;
`D.I. 122 (Dep. Not., attaching Huawei Subpoena, identifying Huawei outside counsel); see also
`D.I. 127 (Dep. Not., attaching Apple Subpoena, identifying Apple outside counsel). Further, IPB
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 4941
`
`The Hon. Maryellen Noreika
`November 29, 2018
`Page 3
`
`counsel has attempted to work with OVT counsel to negotiate dates. See, e.g., Ex. 4. This is
`effectively what OVT asks the Court to compel IPB to do. Yet, OVT does not assert that it
`attempted to contact the third party’s attorney to negotiate the date, time, or place of such
`deposition.
`
`More importantly, OVT’s complaint is nothing but another attempt by OVT’s counsel to
`obstruct IPB’s inducement case by preventing IPB from
`determining the identity of the companies that sell or
`import into the U.S. end products that contain accused
`sensors, and whether OVT provides technical support
`to them or takes any other actions to encourage their
`direct infringement. To date, OVT has produced only
`limited information concerning alleged “U.S. sales.”
`Further, OVT is refusing to fully answer discovery on
`the purported grounds that it has no idea where its
`products go after they are sold. See D.I. 129 at 2. And
`OVT’s witnesses are following suit. For example, John
`Li—who has been OVT’s top executive responsible for
`applications engineering and customer support for the
`
`past decade—testified
`. For these reasons, the Court should not compel IPB’s counsel to “provide
`[OVT’s counsel with] a list of the third parties to whom it has directed a subpoena, provide an
`update as to dates that have been proposed for the deposition, and keep OmniVision informed of
`dates as they are finalized.” Counsel is already doing so.
`
`OVT violated this Court’s discovery procedures and failed to confer on issues 1-3 raised
`in its letter brief. The parties did not conference concerning the first, second, and third alleged
`issues raised for the first time in OVT’s letter brief. See Ex. 6. During the parties’ November 9
`conference, OVT asked IPB to supplement its ’677 patent claim chart, and its responses to OVT’s
`ROG Nos. 4, 8, and 14, and IPB promised to do so by November 16. See Ex. 5 at 1, 2-3. IPB
`complied its promise. Id. OVT’s attempt to raise new complaints about these supplemental
`disclosures is a blatant violation of the Court’s rules.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 4942
`
`The Hon. Maryellen Noreika
`November 29, 2018
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
` /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
`
`
`
`Encl.—Declaration of Chijioke E. Offor
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)(with encl.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 4943
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 16-290 (MN)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHIJIOKE E. OFFOR
`
`I, Chijioke E. Offor, make this declaration and certify as follows:
`
`1.
`
`My name is Chijioke E. Offor. I am more than twenty-one years old, of sound mind,
`
`and fully capable of making this declaration. I am a graduate of the University of Michigan,
`
`College of Engineering at Ann Arbor, Michigan and the University of Wisconsin Law School at
`
`Madison, Wisconsin, and I received my law license from the State Bar of Texas in
`
`November 2008. I am a partner at the law firm of Shore Chan DePumpo LLP in Dallas, Texas,
`
`and I am one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 in the action styled
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Technologies, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-00290 (MN), in the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`set forth in this declaration and am competent to testify thereto.
`
`2.
`
`A true and correct copy of each of the documents identified in the table below is
`
`attached hereto (in Exhibits 1-6).
`
`Exhibit 1 A summary, prepared by IP Bridge’s counsel, of IP Bridge’s response and
`production in response to OmniVision RFP No. 72 and IP Bridge’s answers to
`OmniVision Interrogatory No. 15
`February 26, 2018 Letter from IPB counsel to OVT counsel enclosing
`Production 290-IPB-OVT002636 – 290-IPB-OVT008912
`Exhibit 3 November 5, 2018 Email correspondence between IPB counsel and Huawei
`outside counsel
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 4944
`
`Exhibit 4 November 9, 2018 Email from IPB counsel to OVT counsel concerning Huawei
`deposition scheduling
`Exhibit 5 November 6, 2018 to November 20, 2018 Email correspondence between IPB
`counsel and OVT counsel concerning discovery
`Exhibit 6 November 29, 2018 Email from IPB counsel to OVT counsel requesting that
`OVT counsel withdraw its OVT’s November 28, 2018 Letter Brief filed without
`conferencing on at least three alleged disputes
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 the foregoing is true and
`
`
`
`correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on November 29, 2018 in Dallas, Texas.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chijioke E. Offor
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 4945
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 16-290 (MN)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`IP BRIDGE’S SUMMARY OF ITS RESPONSES TO
`OMNIVISION RFP NO. 72 AND INTERROGATORY NO. 15
`
`OmniVision Request
`RFP NO. 72: All documents
`relating to IP Bridge’s
`financial performance or the
`results of IP Bridge’s activities
`related to the Asserted Patents,
`including products covered by
`one or more claims of the
`Asserted Patents, for any period
`for which IP Bridge is seeking
`to recover any damages,
`including:
`
`a. Quarterly and annual
`financial statements or reports;  
`
`b. All audit reports, notes or
`comments;
`
`c. All management, financial,
`profit or loss, cost or sales
`reports; and
`
`d. Prospectuses, statements or
`other communications to
`securities or industry analysts,
`investors, potential investors,
`stockholders, or members of IP
`Bridge’s Board of Directors
`
`IP Bridge Response1
`2/26/2018 IP Bridge Response: [E]xcept for the documents produced
`herewith, IP Bridge has no responsive documents in its possession,
`custody, or control. IP Bridge is currently not withholding any
`document on the basis of its objections.
`
`2/26/2018 Document Production:. Includes Bates nos. “290-IPB-
`OVT004967-004968, 290-IPB-OVT005413-005414, 290-IPB-
`OVT007874-007904, and 290-IPB-OVT007919-008068.”
`
`“[B]ased on a review by a native Japanese-speaking associate
`at OmniVision’s counsel’s firm”:
`
`[1] Two documents appear to be slide decks that include
`summaries of Godo’s revenue, profits, and financial
`projections from its patent portfolio. See Son Decl. at ¶¶9, 14;
`Exs. L, Q. These appear to have been created for Godo’s
`investors, including NEC and Panasonic, who together are
`previous owners of the asserted patents.
`
`[2] Three documents appear to be financial disclosures from
`Godo to its investors including of Godo’s annual patent
`income. See Son Decl. at ¶¶3-5; Exs. F-H.
`
`[3] Seven documents contain communications between Godo
`and its investors, in which Godo requests investments and
`placement of funds in a trust. See Son Decl. at ¶¶6-8, 10-13; Exs.
`I-K, M-Q.
`
`
`1 IP Bridge’s objections are not included in this summary.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 4946
`
`OmniVision Request
`INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`Explain how IP Bridge and/or
`anyone on IP Bridge’s behalf
`have monetized or otherwise
`realized revenue and any other
`gain with respect to the
`Asserted Patents, including
`revenue or gain related to any
`apparatus, product, device,
`process, method, act, or other
`instrumentality that practices at
`least one asserted claim of any
`of the Asserted Patents, as well
`as revenue derived from any
`express or implied licenses to
`practice the Asserted Patents or
`from any covenants not to sue
`related to the Asserted Patents,
`and provide the gross revenue
`and gross profit related thereto
`on a quarterly basis. IP Bridge’s
`response should include a
`specific identification of the
`relevant documents (by
`production number) and the
`persons most knowledgeable
`about IP Bridge’s response.
`
`IP Bridge Response1
`2/26/2018 IP Bridge Response:.
`RESPONSE TO SUBPART 1: IP Bridge will supplement regarding
`licenses of the Asserted Patents by March 15, 2018 after notifying
`third parties.
`
`RESPONSE TO SUBPART[S] 2[ AND 3]: [P]lease refer to Bates
`Nos. 290-IPB-OVT004967-004968, 290-IPB-OVT005413-005414,
`290-IPB-OVT007874-007904, 290-IPB-OVT007919-008068.
`
`3/16/2018 IP Bridge First Supplemental Response:
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SUBPART 1: [A]s a
`supplemental response to the above, pursuant to Rule 33(d), please
`refer to 290-IPB-OVT012949-012995.
`
`5/4/2018 IP Bridge Second Supplemental Response:
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO SUBPART[S] 2[ AND 3]: IP Bridge
`received $24,000,000 under the Settlement and Patent License
`Agreement dated June 6, 2017 with Avago Technologies US, Inc.,
`Avago Technologies Finance PTE, Ltd., Broadcom Corporation,
`Broadcom Ltd., and LSI Corp (please refer to 290-IPB-OVT012949-
`012995). IP Bridge does not maintain records related to the Asserted
`Patents by “apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other
`instrumentality that practices at least one asserted claim of any of the
`Asserted Patents” or “gross revenue…on a quarterly basis.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 4947
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`DALLAS • NEW YORK • TOKYO
`
`11 2 0 AV E N U E O F T H E A M E R I C A S , 4 T H F L O O R
`N E W Y O R K , N E W Y O R K 1 0 0 3 6
`P H O N E : ( 2 1 4 ) 7 4 3 - 4 1 7 3
`FA X: ( 2 1 4 ) 7 4 3 - 4 1 7 9
`www.ohashiandhorn.com
`
`WRITER’S E-MAIL ADDRESS: ckachel@ohashiandhorn.com
`
`February 26, 2018
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
`David E. Moore
`Bindu A. Palapura
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th 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 94304-1050
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`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
`ovt_ipbridge@wsgr.com
`
`Jose C. Villarreal
`Henry Pan
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`900 South Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`jvillarreal@wsgr.com
`hpan@wsgr.com
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF; Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s Objections and Responses to OmniVision Technologies,
`Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16) and First Set of Requests for Production Nos. (1-
`80) are attached. The production of 290-IPB-OVT002636 – 290-IPB-OVT008852 has been
`uploaded to Dropbox at the following link:
`
`https://www.dropbox.com/sh/92g8qfponalkfni/AAAplJgo2T jVd6fgXR6Zpjaa?dl=0
`
`A password to the Dropbox link will follow in a separate email. Please be aware that this
`
`link will expire in 7 days.
`
`
`Best Regards,
`
`/s/ Cody A. Kachel
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 4948
`
`Chiji Offor
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`Chiji Offor
`Monday, November 5, 2018 11:56 AM
`Graf, Jennifer
`Rhonda Polvado; Sam Joyner
`RE: Godo Kaisha v. OmniVision - Amended Subpoena
`2018-11-05 SECOND AMENDED FRCP45 Depo Subpoena to Huawei.pdf
`
`Jennifer,
`
`Please see the attached amended subpoena based on our conversation this morning.
`The deposition will go forward on November 12, 2018 at your offices, starting at 9:00
`a.m. Central Time.
`
`Based on our call, I understand you have agreed to accept service of this subpoena.
`Don’t hesitate to reach out if there is a need to discuss in the meantime.
`
`Respectfully,
`Chijioke E. Offor, Partner
`
`
`office: 214.593.9128 • cell: 214.901.8306 • fax: 214.593.9111
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
`901 Main Street • Suite 3300 • Dallas, Texas 75202
`coffor@shorechan.com • www.shorechan.com
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-C ient 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.
`
`
`
`
`From: Graf, Jennifer <jgraf@kilpatricktownsend.com>  
`Sent: Monday, November 5, 2018 10:32 AM 
`To: Chiji Offor <coffor@ShoreChan.com> 
`Subject: Godo Kaisha v. OmniVison 
` 
`Chijioke, 
`
` I
`
` represent Huawei Device USA for purposes of the deposition subpoena.  I just left you a message to move the 
`deposition tomorrow.  I understand you are fine with moving the deposition as long as it takes place before November 
`16, 2018.  I propose that we move the deposition to November 9 or 12 with the 12th being the preferable date. 
` 
`Please let me know what date works best for you.  I am also available to discuss. 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 4949
`
` 
`Thanks, 
` 
`Jennifer 
` 
`   
` 
`
`
`
`
`Jennifer L. Graf
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue | Suite 4400 | Dallas, TX 75201
`office 214 922 7138 | fax 214 279 9225
`jgraf@kilpatricktownsend.com | My Profile | VCard 
`
` 
`
`
`Confidentiality Notice:
`This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its
`disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-
`client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
`contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the
`original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. 
`
`
`***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
`intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
`recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 4950
`
`Chiji Offor
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Chiji Offor
`Friday, November 9, 2018 2:40 PM
`Lisa Zang; Erik Carlson; Jose Villarreal
`Sam Joyner
`290 IPB v. OmniVision - Huawei deposition
`
`Jose, Lisa, Erik:
`
` I
`
` am letting you know that, as I indicated on today’s call, I did look into schedules in order to consider the
`request you made today to push the November 12, 2018 deposition of Huawei. However, Sam’s schedule won’t
`work for the dates you mentioned. Since we provided notice of the deposition on November 5, 2018, and
`Huawei’s counsel asked for the November 12, 2018 date, we are going to keep it scheduled for the 12th. I think
`it would potentially be more burdensome to nonparty Huawei to request a change to the deposition date the
`Friday beforehand. I have not contacted Huawei’s counsel, but if you wish to do so, here is her contact
`information: Jennifer L. Graf, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 4400, Dallas,
`TX 75201 (office 214-922-7138; jgraf@kilpatricktownsend.com).
`
`Respectfully,
`Chijioke E. Offor, Partner
`
`
`office: 214.593.9128 • cell: 214.901.8306 • fax: 214.593.9111
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
`901 Main Street • Suite 3300 • Dallas, Texas 75202
`coffor@shorechan.com • www.shorechan.com
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-C ient 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.
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 4951
`
`Chiji Offor
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Chiji Offor
`Tuesday, November 20, 2018 12:54 AM
`'Carlson, Erik'; Jose Villarreal
`OVT IPBridge; David Ellis Moore; Bindu Palapura; TeamIPB_Omni_DE_290; Sam Joyner; Stamatios
`Stamoulis
`RE: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-290 (D. Del.)--IP Bridge's motion to
`compel discovery responses
`
`Erik,
`
`Regarding your email below, IP Bridge has supplemented its responses to Interrogatories 4, 8, 12, and 14, has
`supplemented its ’677 patent infringement contentions claim charts, and has offered 30(b)(6) deposition
`dates. The parties are negotiating the details of the 30(b)(6) dates/times offered.
`
`Regarding your point number 3, I did not agree to provide a list as you state, and IP Bridge did not fail to give
`OmniVision reasonable notice of any subpoenas. I informed you that we have complied with the rules in
`seeking testimony from third parties by subpoena and providing notice of any confirmed deposition. Further, I
`raised our concerns that OmniVision would obstruct third party discovery in view of its discovery positions and
`witness testimony. You indicated that as officers of the court OmniVision’s counsel would not.
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11: State the name and
`address of every importer, seller, marketer, distributor,
`or manufacturer of any smartphone, tablet, mobile
`device, digital still camera, automobile component,
`automobile, medical device, wearable technology,
`robotics application, machine vision application,
`security camera, surveillance system, PC, notebook,
`web camera, or other imaging application that
`integrates or otherwise includes an OMNIVISION
`PART manufactured or supplied with OmniVision’s
`authorization on or after April 22, 2008.
`
`10/26/2018 OmniVision Response:
`OmniVision has no direction or control over
`the disposition of its image sensors
`following the sale of its image sensors. As a
`result, OmniVision does not have possession,
`custody, or control of information that is
`responsive to this interrogatory.
`
`
`10/17/2018 Testimony of John Li, Senior Vice President of System Technologies, OmniVision
`
`Finally, it should be clear to those on the call that we also conferred regarding OmniVision’s deficient
`responses to each of IP Bridge’s discovery requests set forth in Sam’s November 6, 2018 email (which is part
`of this email chain). In response, Lisa and Jose indicated that OmniVision would stand on its prior responses
`and would not provide any further information, or any information at all in some cases. OmniVision did not
`1
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 4952
`provide any sales data until October 2018, and on the call I informed Jose of our position that we are entitled
`to global sales information in response to the interrogatories and RFPs listed in Sam’s November 6 email (i.e.,
`ROG's 1 & 13; RFP’s 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 74, 76, 78). He disagreed. Lisa also represented that certain of the
`depositions that are the subject of IPB RFP Nos. 28-40 did not occur. Finally, I raised whether OmniVision
`would produce the documents John Li identified in his 10/17/18 deposition. While you characterize this as a
`“new request,” the documents fall within the scope of the documents we already requested via RFP Nos. 59-
`64—each of which requests certain “communications and documents received, sent, or possessed by JOHN
`LI.” After the call, Stam contacted the Court to obtain dates for the discovery hearing so that our issues would
`be raised with the Court.
`
`Respectfully,
`Chijioke E. Offor, Partner
`
`
`office: 214.593.9128 • cell: 214.901.8306 • fax: 214.593.9111
`Shore Chan DePumpo LLP
`901 Main Street • Suite 3300 • Dallas, Texas 75202
`coffor@shorechan.com • www.shorechan.com
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
`The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail may be subject to the Attorney-C ient 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.
`
`
`___
`
`From: Carlson, Erik <ecarlson@wsgr.com>  
`Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 7:11 PM 
`To: Sam Joyner <sjoyner@ShoreChan.com>; Chiji Offor <coffor@ShoreChan.com> 
`Cc: OVT IPBridge <OVT_IPBridge@wsgr.com>; David Ellis Moore <dmoore@potteranderson.com>; Bindu Palapura 
`<bpalapura@potteranderson.com>; TeamIPB_Omni_DE_290 <TeamIPB_Omni_DE_290@ShoreChan.com>; Jose 
`Villarreal <jvillarreal@wsgr.com> 
`Subject: RE: Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Ltd., No. 1:16‐CV‐290 (D. Del.)‐‐IP Bridge's motion to compel 
`discovery responses 
` 
`Counsel, 
` 
`This email memorializes issues discussed on today’s meet and confer.  
` 
`Godo’s Discovery Deficiencies: 
`1. ’677 patent infringement contentions. Godo indicated it will supplement by 11/16. OmniVision will 
`raise with Court given Godo’s delay. 
`2. Interrogatories 4 (marking), 8 (conception and RtP), 12 (secondary considerations), 14 (Godo 
`affiliates and investors). Godo will supplement by 11/16. OmniVision will raise with Court given Godo’s 
`delay and prior commitment to supplement by 11/6. 
`3. Godo’s failure to provide reasonable notice of third party subpoenas. Godo agreed to provide a list all 
`third parties that had been subpoenaed and copies of subpoenas served on third parties. Godo agreed 
`to keep OmniVision better informed of third party deposition planning, including proposed dates and 
`final dates. Godo agreed to propose November 14 and 15 as a date for the Huawei deposition (an 
`agreement Godo has already failed to follow through on). If reasonable notice is not given, OmniVision 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 152 Filed 12/11/18 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 4953
`will move to quash subpoenas and/or will move for a protective order to prevent use of deposition 
`testimony.  
`4. Godo’s failure to provide English translations. Godo will evaluate English translations produced in the 
`NDCA case that were not produced in the Del. case (e.g., 778‐IPB‐OVT_0000309–325; 778‐IPB‐
`OVT_0000326–341) in light of Godo’s confirmation that it had produced all translations in  Del. case. 
`Additionally, Godo’s amended response to OmniVision Interrogatory 15 (value of the asserted patents) 
`stating that it “does not maintain records” responsive contradicts its earlier response citing 
`to  Japanese documents (290‐IPB‐OVT004967‐004968, 290‐IPB‐OVT005413‐005414, 290‐IPB‐
`OVT007874‐007904, 290‐IPB‐OVT007919‐008068). WSGR review suggests that the earlier‐cited 
`documents are responsive to ROG 15. Godo will evaluate its amended response to interrogatory 15. 
`5. Godo’s failure to provide dates for 30(b)(6) deposition. See my earlier email to Mr. Offor re this topic. 
`
` 
`Other Issues: 
`1. Godo’s request for global sales information in response to ROG’s 1 & 13; RFP’s 44, 48, 49, 50‐52, 75, 
`76, 78. Godo clarified that its only purported issue with OmniVision’s production/responses is the 
`omission of foreign sales information. OmniVision maintains its objections, including that evidence re 
`extra‐territorial sales is not relevant.  
`2. Godo’s RFPs re John Li documents/communications. Godo proposed, for the first time, a narrowed set 
`of documents that John Li purportedly referenced during his deposition. Godo will send additional info 
`and OmniVision will consider this new request.  
`
` 
`Regards, 
`Erik 
` 
`
`Erik J. Carlson • Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550 • Los Angeles, CA 90071 • 323.210.2940 • ecarlson@wsgr.com
`
`
`
` 
` 
` 
`From: Carlson, Erik
`Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 8:40 AM
`To: Sam Joyner; Villarreal, Jose
`Cc: Chiji Offor; WSGR - OVT/IP Bridge;