throbber
Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.40995 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 16
`
`1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD, and EMCORE CORPORATION,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`No. 12-cv-11758
`
`v
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Defendants.
`_________________________/
`
`JURY TRIAL - VOLUME I of XII
`EXCERPTS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`Theodore Levin United States Courthouse
`231 West Lafayette Boulevard
`Detroit, Michigan
`Tuesday, April 7, 2015
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiffs:
`
`MR. A. MICHAEL PALIZZI
`MR. MICHAEL C. SIMONI
`Miller, Canfield, Paddock and
`Stone, PLC
`150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2500
`Detroit, Michigan
`48226
`(313) 486-7645
`MR. RAYMOND N. NIMROD
`MR. MATTHEW A. TRAUPMAN
`MS. ANASTASIA M. FERNANDS
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
`LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 29th Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`(212) 849-7412
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.40996 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 16
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Defendants:
`
`MR. STEVEN J. RIZZI
`MR. RAMY E. HANNA
`MR. RYAN SCHMID
`Foley and Lardner, LLP
`90 Park Avenue, 37th Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`(212) 682-7474
`MS. LISA S. MANKOFSKY
`Foley & Lardner, LLP
`3000 K Street N. W,
`Washington, DC
`20007
`(202) 672-5300
`MR. JOHN R. TRENTACOSTA
`Foley & Lardner
`500 Woodward Avenue
`Detroit, Michigan
`(313) 234-2800
`
`48226
`
`Suite 600
`
`Reported by:
`
`Merilyn J. Jones, RPR, CSR
`Official Federal Court Reporter
`merilyn_jones@mied.uscourts.gov
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.40997 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 16
`
`3
`
`Detroit, Michigan
`Tuesday, April 7, 2015 - 8:25 a.m.
`THE CLERK:
`All rise.
`The United States District
`Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is now in session.
`Honorable Gershwin A. Drain presiding.
`Calling Civil Action Everlight Electronics Company
`versus Nichia Corporation, Number 12-11758.
`Counsel, please put your appearance on the record.
`MR. NIMROD: Ray Nimrod from Quinn Emanuel on
`behalf of Everlight, and with me is Matt Traupman from Quinn
`Emanuel, Anastasia Fernands from Quinn Emanuel, and we have a
`corporate representative from Everlight, Bernd Kammerer.
`MR. PALIZZI: Mike Palizzi from Miller Canfield.
`With me in the back is Mike Simoni as well.
`Steven Rizzi
`MR. RIZZI: Good morning, your Honor.
`of Foley and Lardner on behalf of Defendant Nichia Corporation.
`With me is Lisa Mankofsky, John Trentacosta, Ramy Hanna, and
`Ryan Schmid, also Foley and Lardner, and we have Dr. Daniel
`Doxsee as a corporate representative for Nichia.
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`You can be seated.
`And I really just came out here to tell you that
`when we ordered the jury panel about a month ago, we said 9
`o'clock.
`And it was only recently that I changed it and tried
`to move it up to 8:30.
`So, long story short, the jury won't be ready
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.40998 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 16
`
`4
`
`until nine.
`
`Okay.
`So, I just wanted you to know that.
`Just a couple other things.
`The stipulation that
`was submitted to me yesterday, I take it there's some authority
`for this closing the courtroom at certain times with regard to
`documents and/or testimony.
`It's not unusual in a
`MR. RIZZI: Yes, your Honor.
`patent cases involving competitors with sensitive business and
`financial technical information to do that, recognizing we want
`to limit the occasions when that needs to happen.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`All right.
`Just for my own
`edification, could you give me a case that deals with that
`particular issue?
`I just want -- it
`And it's not that important.
`will increase my comfort level with closing the courtroom,
`because we don't normally do that in criminal or civil cases.
`Just an authority.
`Yes, your Honor.
`MR. RIZZI:
`And then one last matter relates to my
`THE COURT:
`court reporter.
`Typically when videos are shown or there are
`video deps, I don't require that she take what's shown in the
`video or repeat and make transcript out of things that are in
`video.
`
`So, do either of you have any objection to my
`allowing her to not transcribe what's going to be shown on the
`patent video or when we have video depositions?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.40999 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 16
`
`5
`
`MR. NIMROD: We have no objection to that, your
`We would just record what is actually being played by
`Honor.
`line, page and line number.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. NIMROD:
`That would be fine.
`And submit the transcript, then --
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. NIMROD: -- to reflect what's actually being
`
`played.
`
`All right.
`THE COURT:
`As long as the
`MR. RIZZI: Yes, your Honor.
`testimony finds its way into the record, we have no objection.
`THE COURT:
`And we'll do that.
`I can't think of anything else we need to take up
`at this point before jury selection.
`We're going to have to have people who are in the
`courtroom move back for the jurors that come in.
`And once the
`jurors get seated, you can, you know, move back to the
`positions you're in.
`Yes?
`THE COURT:
`MS. MANKOFSKY: Thank you, your Honor.
`other housekeeping matter if we can do that now.
`Yesterday we mentioned to you that there was one
`paragraph from the stipulated facts that Nichia felt was
`inaccurate, and we were working with Everlight to see if we
`
`There's one
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41000 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 16
`
`6
`
`The parties have decided instead
`could correct that paragraph.
`to just take that paragraph out of the stipulated facts and we
`will be putting it into our own fact section.
`So, I have today with me a revised stipulated
`facts that you can use to read to the jury.
`And I also have --
`And I think I'd prefer to have
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`one of you read the stipulated facts to the jury.
`MS. MANKOFSKY: And then I also have a revised
`preliminary jury instruction that reflect the ruling you made
`yesterday about rebuttal cases.
`THE COURT:
`Yes.
`MS. MANKOFSKY: Because in the version that we had
`submitted to you previously there were the competing
`provisions.
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MS. MANKOFSKY:
`
`And now this just has the one
`
`provision.
`
`So we can hand these up to you, if you like, even
`though counsel will be reading the stipulated facts.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`You can do that.
`MS. MANKOFSKY: Okay.
`Thank you.
`THE COURT:
`Is that the only change that's in the
`preliminary jury instructions?
`MS. MANKOFSKY: Yes.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41001 Filed 04/30/15 Page 7 of 16
`
`7
`
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`MS. MANKOFSKY: There is one related question for
`
`you.
`
`Yes.
`THE COURT:
`MS. MANKOFSKY: That question is, when we bring you
`our revised facts that add that one paragraph in, would you
`like us to bring it to court, for example, tomorrow as a
`separate stand alone section, or would you like us to bring a
`new version of the pretrial order that includes that new
`stipulated fact section and our new fact section.
`We can do it
`either way.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Just bring me the new stipulated
`
`facts.
`
`MS. MANKOFSKY: Our new fact section?
`THE COURT:
`Yes.
`Thank you.
`MS. MANKOFSKY: All right.
`THE COURT:
`Yes?
`We have something else, Mr. --
`MR. PALIZZI: One more thing, judge.
`In the
`pretrial the parties agreed that we would meet and confer on
`any objections we had on the opening slides last night.
`We
`did.
`There are four slides that Everlight objects to in
`Nichia's opening deck.
`I assume you want to do this after jury
`selection, but if you wanted to do it now, I'm happy to address
`those as well.
`THE COURT:
`
`Have you -- is this beyond what we
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41002 Filed 04/30/15 Page 8 of 16
`
`8
`
`took care of yesterday --
`MR. PALIZZI: Yes.
`THE COURT:
`-- with regard --
`MR. PALIZZI: We just got the slides yesterday
`What the order says is at 6 o'clock last night we
`morning.
`were supposed to confer, which we did.
`And there's four slides
`that we're objecting to they're including in the opening
`statement.
`So now we bring them to you.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`Let me see the slides, and, I
`guess, maybe you can tell me what the issues are now.
`MR. RIZZI: We can hand up a --
`MR. PALIZZI: I have the four that, only four are
`at issue with us.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`MR. RIZZI: If I can hand you the entire
`presentation.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`MR. RIZZI: This has the four that we moved from
`
`yesterday.
`
`MR. PALIZZI: There should be five that are out
`from yesterday.
`MR. RIZZI: Five, correct.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. PALIZZI: So I can just -- I'll run through
`these, probably, in two minutes apiece.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41003 Filed 04/30/15 Page 9 of 16
`
`9
`
`The first one is the Slide Number 4.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. PALIZZI: And in our objection to this is that
`it's misleading and prejudicial.
`Here's what they've done.
`They've taken a patent that Everlight filed in 2010 and they're
`using it to, as the title suggests, suggest that we are saying
`that Nichia's patents-at-issue in this suit are incredible.
`The problem is is that that's not what this patent says.
`this is doing --
`THE COURT:
`
`When you say, patent, you're talking
`
`What
`
`about --
`
`This is a patent
`
`MR. PALIZZI: Let me back up.
`that Everlight filed.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. PALIZZI: And what they've done --
`THE COURT:
`Just a minute.
`MR. PALIZZI:
`-- is they've taken some statements
`
`--
`
`second.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Just a minute.
`
`Hold on just a
`
`MR. PALIZZI: Sure.
`THE COURT:
`This would be the 543?
`MR. PALIZZI: Correct.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. PALIZZI:
`So the 543 isn't at issue in this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41004 Filed 04/30/15 Page 10 of 16
`
`10
`
`case.
`
`Right.
`THE COURT:
`So what they've done is they found
`MR. PALIZZI:
`this patent that Everlight filed and they've pulled out a
`couple of statements from this patent.
`And if you look at the
`second box it says:
`"The preparation method for white LEDs was first
`developed by Nichia Corporation, which mixed light
`of two wavelengths."
`The patent of the preparing method for white LEDs
`is held by Nichia Corporation.
`Neither the '925 or '960
`patents that are at issue in this lawsuit are method patents.
`This is not referring to the '950(sic) or '960.
`So what they're doing is they're taking this
`statement and they're saying -- they're going to use this to
`suggest to the jury that the '925 and the '960 by our admission
`are not only not invalid, but in their words, incredible.
`And
`I think it's confusing and misleading to allow them to put in
`front of the jury a reference to a patent that isn't at issue
`in this lawsuit.
`So that's our objection to that one.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`And this is one
`MR. PALIZZI: Next, Slide 12.
`that we would, I don't like to say this, but this is one we
`strenuously object to.
`And here's our objection to this,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41005 Filed 04/30/15 Page 11 of 16
`
`11
`
`there's three.
`What this is is this is a letter from Everlight to
`a Japanese company concerning products that Everlight was
`selling in Japan.
`It relates to the, as the Court recalls,
`there was some disputes between Nichia and Everlight's customer
`in Japan.
`It was a foreign proceeding.
`It doesn't relate to
`the patents-at-issue in this case, but the foreign
`counterparts.
`So our first objection to this is, as the Court
`has already ruled, and as we discussed yesterday, the foreign
`proceedings don't come into this case.
`They're relevant to
`willfulness and willfulness only.
`So that's our first objection to their reference
`to this document.
`The second point is the slide is misrepresenting
`What they say here is that, right in the title,
`something.
`Everlight's first attempt to use Nichia's technology
`misrepresent Everlight's products, and they're highlighting the
`sentence that says:
`"It should be noted that Everlight does not use
`YAG phosphor in manufacturing and production of its
`white LEDs."
`At the time, which this letter was written in
`2004, that was accurate.
`We weren't using YAG phosphors in
`LEDs in Japan.
`This is talking about a dispute that's pending
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41006 Filed 04/30/15 Page 12 of 16
`
`12
`
`in Japan.
`
`So, our second objection is it's misleading and we
`would object to them being able to offer this document into
`evidence at all, let alone show it to the jury.
`This is a 2004
`And the third one is -- I'm sorry.
`So this is even outside of the time period by two
`letter.
`years that's at issue in this lawsuit.
`It's
`So this is hugely prejudicial to us.
`This court has already ruled that this, that the
`inaccurate.
`foreign proceedings don't come in except in connection with
`willfulness, which this trial isn't about, and it's very
`prejudicial.
`
`I think that this is talking about a
`Slide 18.
`They're suggesting that we're trying to force a
`license.
`license from Nichia.
`We're not trying to force a license from
`Nichia.
`We're trying to invalidate their patents in this
`trial.
`If they want to talk about a license, they can do that
`in the damage portion of the case.
`This isn't for this phase
`of the trial.
`Last, you know, the age old debate about what you
`get to say about the burden of proof.
`I think that it is
`improper for them to instruct the jury on the burden.
`That's
`up to your Honor.
`And I really think it's improper to suggest
`that it is accurately reflected by this speedometer chart here
`suggesting that it's, it's pretty close to beyond a shadow of a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41007 Filed 04/30/15 Page 13 of 16
`
`13
`
`doubt, which, of course, isn't even a legal principle as far as
`I know, and for that reason it's misleading, and I think it
`invades on what the Court should be doing as oppose to the
`parties in opening statement.
`That's all I got.
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`MR. RIZZI: Your Honor, frankly, these are all
`silly objections.
`This, this is an
`Starting with Slide 4.
`Everlight patent that Everlight itself filed in 2010 praising
`Nichia's invention of the white LED, and that's not in dispute.
`I'm happy to hand up the patent and these excerpts come from
`something I intend to read to the jury that makes clear that in
`this patent Everlight is attributing the invention of a white
`LED as described in the Nichia patents to Nichia in the context
`of trying to get its own patent.
`This is classic secondary considerations of
`nonobviousness that must be considered in the nonobviousness
`analysis.
`Praise by others is square on one of those secondary
`conversations, and his distinction that this is somehow talking
`about a method, that's absurd, your Honor.
`It describes the
`product, and if I can read that right from Everlight's patent.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`You know what, I'm going to
`allow you to use this one.
`MR. RIZZI:
`Thank you, your Honor.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41008 Filed 04/30/15 Page 14 of 16
`
`14
`
`THE COURT:
`
`And I'm going to also allow you to use
`
`Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. RIZZI: Okay.
`And Number 13, you know, all that's about, your
`
`Number 12.
`
`Honor, is --
`
`You mean, Number 18.
`THE COURT:
`MR. RIZZI: I'm sorry.
`18, yes.
`THE COURT:
`18.
`MR. RIZZI: Everlight has injected into this case
`the reasons it brought this lawsuit.
`It wants to tell the jury
`that the reason it brought the lawsuit is it believes Nichia's
`patents are invalid.
`We submit, your Honor, the real reason is
`it's trying to force the license from Nichia.
`It's in a
`pattern of conduct and that is directly rebutting their
`position.
`
`So I don't see any basis to prevent us from
`allowing to rebut --
`THE COURT:
`
`And I think I'll let you go ahead and
`
`do that.
`
`Thank you.
`Okay.
`MR. RIZZI:
`I've never
`What about this last one.
`THE COURT:
`heard of a burden of proof that's beyond a shadow of a doubt.
`I've never heard of that before.
`MR. RIZZI: Well, your Honor, we're showing that
`that's all the way at the end.
`I think it --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41009 Filed 04/30/15 Page 15 of 16
`
`15
`
`But, I've never -- I mean, there's no
`
`THE COURT:
`legal basis for that.
`MR. RIZZI: We can change that to "beyond a
`reasonable doubt" so it matches up with an actual --
`THE COURT:
`That would be appropriate, but this
`one -- So I'll grant their motion to strike this one, because
`it's legally incorrect.
`MR. RIZZI: To be clear, if we just change it to
`"reasonable doubt", would that be acceptable?
`THE COURT:
`Yes.
`MR. RIZZI:
`Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT:
`Yes.
`You can change that, yes.
`All right.
`Then, we'll be in recess until the
`jury arrives.
`THE CLERK: All rise.
`(At 8:40 a.m. court in recess)
`(At 9:15 a.m. jury selection held, but not transcribed)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 507, PageID.41010 Filed 04/30/15 Page 16 of 16
`
`16
`
`C E R T I F I C A T E
`I, Merilyn J. Jones, Official Court Reporter of the
`United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan,
`appointed pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States
`Code, Section 753, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages
`1-16, inclusive, comprise a full, true and correct transcript
`taken in the matter of Everlight Electronics Company, Limited
`versus Nichia Corporation, et al, 12-cv-11758 on Tuesday, April
`7, 2015.
`
`/s/Merilyn J. Jones
`Merilyn J. Jones, CSR, RPR
`Federal Official Reporter
`231 W. Lafayette Boulevard, Suite 123
`Detroit, Michigan
`48226
`Date: April 11, 2015
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket