throbber
Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 532, PageID.43930 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 144
`
`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 VII OF XII
`PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`Theodore Levin United States Courthouse
`231 West Lafayette Boulevard
`Detroit, Michigan
`Wednesday, April 15, 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. 532, PageID.43931 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 144
`
`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
`MR. MICHAEL D. KAMINSKI
`Foley & Lardner, LLP
`3000 K Street N. W,
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC
`20007
`(202) 672-5300
`MR. JOHN R. TRENTACOSTA
`Foley & Lardner
`500 Woodward Avenue
`Detroit, Michigan
`(313) 234-2800
`
`48226
`
`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. 532, PageID.43932 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 144
`
`3
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`WITNESSES:
`None
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DEFENDANT
`WITNESSES:
`YASANOBU NOGUCHI
`Redirect examination by Mr. Kaminski
`Recross-examination by Mr. Nimrod
`E. FRED SCHUBERT
`Direct examination by Mr. Rizzi
`
`EXHIBITS:
`Defendant's Exhibit D0401
`Defendant's Exhibit D171
`Defendant's Exhibit D359
`Defendant's Exhibit D364
`
`Identified
`
`122
`
`PAGE
`
`22
`25
`
`30
`
`Received
`25
`
`142
`142
`
`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. 532, PageID.43933 Filed 05/22/15 Page 4 of 144
`
`4
`
`Detroit, Michigan
`Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - 8:10 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.
`You may be seated.
`Please put your appearance on the record.
`MR. NIMROD:
`Good morning, your Honor.
`THE COURT:
`Good morning.
`MR. NIMROD:
`Ray Nimrod from Quinn Emanuel on
`behalf of Everlight.
`With me is Matt Traupman from Quinn
`Emanuel, Mike Palizzi from Miller Canfield and Mike Simoni.
`And we have our corporate representative, Bernd Kammerer.
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`Steven
`MR. RIZZI:
`Good morning, your Honor.
`Rizzi, Foley & Lardner, on behalf of Nichia.
`With me is Ramy
`Hanna, Lisa Mankofsky of Foley & Lardner, Mr. Ryan Schmid, and
`also our corporate representative, Dr. Dan Doxsee.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`All right.
`We've got a few
`things to take up.
`Your Honor, if I may, there is one
`MR. NIMROD:
`other issue that I think -- I just wanted to advise you early
`on.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43934 Filed 05/22/15 Page 5 of 144
`
`5
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Is that something that's going to come
`
`up today?
`
`And it's a short
`Yes, I think it is.
`MR. NIMROD:
`thing and I don't think it needs to be resolved.
`But we found out yesterday at 4:30 that Nichia was
`dropping 15 of its claims and was going to assert six claims.
`And I think that -- and they wanted to drop our invalidity
`counterclaims on those sixteen claims after we have gone
`through hours and hours of testimony from Dr. Bretschneider.
`We think this is unfair what they have done here,
`a litigation tactic to have done this in mid-trial.
`You told
`Nichia asserted 21 claims before trial.
`the jury that there were 21 claims at issue.
`We put our proofs
`on.
`We burned clock time.
`We took up the jury's time.
`I
`think Mr. Traupman, I think, apologized three or four times, I
`might have the number of times wrong, but for taking up the
`jury's time as we slogged through the claims.
`Now Nichia wants to come in and say, like, we're
`the good guys, we are going to trim things down for you.
`Just
`think about this, your Honor.
`There has been no evidence put
`in on non-infringement whatsoever.
`One, they
`So one of two things is happening here.
`heard our validity proofs and they know those 15 claims are
`invalid, and if they want to stipulate to that, then that
`should happen and the jury should be told that; or, this is
`
`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. 532, PageID.43935 Filed 05/22/15 Page 6 of 144
`
`6
`
`They knew they weren't going to
`just a litigation tactic.
`assert these things, they wanted to burn our time, and they
`want to look good in front of the jury to say that they were
`trimming the case for them.
`Now, we're not asking you to resolve this issue
`right now about what to do about this, but what we want to ask
`you to do is to tell the other side that they cannot say
`anything today about Nichia trimming the case, about trying to
`make things easier for the jury.
`They should put their proofs in that they're
`putting in on their six claims, just do that, and then I think,
`your Honor, we should talk about what message should go to the
`jury, and it should come from you, your Honor, because you're
`the one that charged the jury in the preliminary instructions
`that there would be 21 claims at issue here.
`Like I said, I don't think we need to resolve
`anything today, but to say that they should just put their
`proofs in and then we can talk about what the message should
`be.
`Thank you.
`Your Honor, this wasn't even raised
`MR. RIZZI:
`with us before today, but I do want to respond, so the record
`is clear.
`
`This was not a litigation tactic by any stretch of
`the imagination.
`During the course of trial decisions are made
`based on how much time we have allotted and we made a decision
`
`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. 532, PageID.43936 Filed 05/22/15 Page 7 of 144
`
`7
`
`to streamline this case in order to present it in a way that
`was more coherent for the jury.
`And I also want to reiterate, we made more than
`one attempt four months ago, we asked them, we will agree -- in
`fact, we even told them two months ago, we will agree to reduce
`our presentation down to, I think it was, eight claims, and
`they refused.
`They would not even negotiate with us, because
`they didn't want to reduce their prior art.
`So they should not
`be heard here today to be heard to complain that somehow this
`is Nichia, some litigation strategy.
`That's such a stretch and
`completely unfair for them to characterize it that way.
`And as long as it's clear, we have no intent of
`
`trying to --
`
`I'm not -- I'm going to take
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`care of some other things right now, but stay right there,
`Mr. Rizzi.
`
`Yes.
`MR. RIZZI:
`I'm a little concerned about the TAEUS
`THE COURT:
`And let me just -- I want to make sure I get a good
`report.
`understanding of -- what is it, that IAL report --
`MR. RIZZI: Yes.
`THE COURT:
`-- and the TAEUS, those are two
`separate groups.
`MR. RIZZI:
`THE COURT:
`
`And these --
`Yes.
`Hold on just a second.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43937 Filed 05/22/15 Page 8 of 144
`
`8
`
`The IAL, their testing, they just purely do
`testing; is that correct?
`MR. RIZZI:
`Correct, your Honor.
`THE COURT:
`They're pure testers, they test for
`all kinds of things?
`They do product testing and
`Yes.
`MR. RIZZI:
`analysis and prepare the data from that testing.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`But TAEUS is a company that
`prepares data for litigation.
`TAEUS
`MR. RIZZI:
`Not in this case, your Honor.
`was really just sort of -- because IAL was really just a
`testing lab, TAEUS performed the role of simply taking the IAL
`data and compiling it into product reports on a
`product-by-product basis.
`In this case, TAEUS was really just
`a passthrough.
`They are certainly a litigation --
`THE COURT:
`They are really just a what?
`MR. RIZZI:
`A passthrough.
`THE COURT:
`A passthrough.
`MR. RIZZI:
`There's really no dispute of that.
`That's what the declarations we submitted support.
`So, yes, their business is litigation support
`services and that's -- there's many firms in that business that
`perform that role of sort of just logistics.
`THE COURT:
`Is anybody from TAEUS coming in to
`
`testify?
`
`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. 532, PageID.43938 Filed 05/22/15 Page 9 of 144
`
`9
`
`No, your Honor. You know, we didn't
`MR. RIZZI:
`know this was going to be an issue until the pretrial order
`when they raised an objection.
`We thought the issue had been
`resolved by your ruling on Daubert.
`They raised hearsay
`objections there.
`Your Honor rejected their objections.
`When they first raised the issue in the pretrial
`order, we said, we really don't think this should be an issue,
`but just to avoid having to burden the court, we will go ahead
`and get the authenticating declarations from TAEUS and an IAL
`representative and we provided those.
`THE COURT:
`Are you seeking to admit the TAEUS
`reports into evidence or just to have that testified about?
`MR. RIZZI:
`Well, as a practical matter, there are
`200-some-odd reports that are part of the analysis performed
`by Dr. Schubert in connection with his opinions.
`He cannot
`possibly put 200 reports up on the screen and go through them
`one by one, so it simply is a matter of expedience.
`It's the same issue with the chart, your Honor,
`there is no possible way, with the limited time we have, we can
`put in our proofs on thousands of products on a
`product-by-product basis.
`So our intent, your Honor, is to have Professor
`Schubert walk through his analysis of one product, showing
`one report with a cross-section.
`The rest of them will be
`submitted into evidence with Professor Schubert's analysis
`
`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. 532, PageID.43939 Filed 05/22/15 Page 10 of 144
`
`10
`
`chart so that the jury will have those to consider on its own
`based on Professor Schubert's analysis of the one report and
`his testimony here at trial.
`There are
`It's just a question of practicality.
`so many products at issue, and that's the same issue with the
`chart, that there is no possible way we could have Professor
`Schubert testify to all of them live in court.
`So it was our
`plan to simply do it that way for expediency purposes.
`THE COURT:
`And I guess with regard to the TAEUS
`reports that are really prepared for litigation, how do you get
`around the fact that they really aren't technically business
`records in the sense that they're prepared for litigation?
`MR. RIZZI:
`Well, the -- so to be clear, IAL is a
`testing laboratory.
`And I don't have any problem with any
`THE COURT:
`of their test results coming into evidence as a business
`record.
`I don't have any problem with IAL.
`MR. RIZZI:
`And, your Honor, then that really
`resolves the issue, because the TAEUS report, essentially it's
`a cover sheet; no analysis, no judgment, just a cover sheet
`essentially on top of the IAL data.
`THE COURT:
`But you want to give that to the jury
`and you want me to receive the TAEUS report into evidence?
`MR. RIZZI:
`You know, we're happy to sort of
`provide just the IAL data.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43940 Filed 05/22/15 Page 11 of 144
`
`11
`
`THE COURT:
`MR. RIZZI:
`THE COURT:
`MR. RIZZI:
`issue on the chart?
`THE COURT:
`
`later.
`
`Okay.
`That would work fine, your Honor.
`Okay.
`Okay.
`Would you like me to address the other
`
`Yeah, I'll give you a chance to speak
`
`I just want to make clear,
`Okay.
`MR. RIZZI:
`though, the chart is a very big issue because we have prepared
`our whole infringement case, you know, not just day and night
`this week, but for the entire case, based on Professor Schubert
`being able to certainly use that chart to present his opinions,
`and if we're not able to do that, we basically have to redo our
`whole infringement presentation.
`So I just want to make that
`clear to the Court.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`Sure.
`MR. RIZZI:
`So before trial -- well, let me just
`THE COURT:
`say, Everlight has objected to some recent, more in-depth
`analysis on some products, is that --
`We've actually -- because
`MR. RIZZI:
`That's out.
`we have reduced the number of claims, one of the -- two of the
`issues resolved yesterday with the chart.
`There was still a tab that had to do with products
`that Everlight did not indicate were imported or sold into the
`
`Don't leave yet.
`
`I'm not done.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43941 Filed 05/22/15 Page 12 of 144
`
`12
`
`U.S. those have been removed.
`We also removed all the claims that are no longer
`And there is no issue, no remaining issue in
`in the case.
`terms of any new claims or new infringement opinions that have
`been put in.
`
`Because as I understood it yesterday,
`THE COURT:
`Everlight was complaining about the fact that Schubert
`originally did some analysis on, what was it, half a dozen
`products or something like that.
`MR. RIZZI: I think that's a different issue.
`That's the exemplary, their exemplary.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`Well, let's talk about that,
`He originally did analysis on four products or something
`then.
`like that?
`
`He has always done
`No, your Honor.
`MR. RIZZI:
`the analysis on all the products.
`Literally, it's 800, but
`because those 800 were made at different times, and multiple
`iterations, so it ended up being close to 10,000.
`So he
`performed -- and this was addressed in your Daubert ruling.
`You already determined, confirmed what we clearly did or what
`Professor Schubert clearly did, was just analyze each of those
`on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`In the expert report
`itself, he provided one chart, a representative claim chart, so
`a chart which clearly, as he said, and as your Honor indicated
`in your Daubert ruling --
`
`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. 532, PageID.43942 Filed 05/22/15 Page 13 of 144
`
`13
`
`Was that one chart
`
`Hold on.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`with regard to all of the items or --
`MR. RIZZI:
`A group --
`THE COURT:
`I thought there was a representative
`sample that he went into greater detail about.
`MR. RIZZI:
`So what he did was, he made clear --
`actually, it's right in your Daubert ruling.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. RIZZI:
`Because we quote -- you quoted a
`portion of his expert report where he made clear exactly what
`he did.
`So he did group the thousands of products into what he
`called YAG or TAG-based, and simply, that's just based on the
`phosphor that's used in the white LED, and he considered those
`essentially as a group.
`What page are you on?
`THE COURT:
`I'm on page 4 of your ruling.
`MR. RIZZI:
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`So if you look at the bottom, you're
`MR. RIZZI:
`actually quoting from his report.
`And he makes clear -- of
`course, there's not all these claims still at issue.
`The products are grouped into YAG or TAG-based
`products and he said, set forth below are representative claim
`charts for the asserted claims, including an element-by-element
`analysis of exemplary YAG and TAG-based products for each of
`these claims.
`And then he makes clear, the infringement
`
`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. 532, PageID.43943 Filed 05/22/15 Page 14 of 144
`
`14
`
`analysis set forth below applies to all of the YAG and
`TAG-based accused products.
`And then he goes on, my analysis chart identifies
`the complete list of the YAG and TAG-based accused products,
`as well as the specific claims asserted and the supporting
`documentation.
`So in his report he did, for a couple of exemplary
`products, he just pointed to the documents, you know, that
`supported where the limitations were found in those particular
`products, but he made very clear that that analysis, that claim
`chart, applied to all of the products in his, in his analysis
`chart.
`
`Now, on the next page your Honor confirmed that,
`Contrary to Everlight's assertions, Schubert's
`and said:
`expert report and analysis chart provide a detailed
`limitation-by-limitation analysis -- I'm reading from page 5 --
`for all of the accused products.
`And then you go on to say:
`For example, Schubert's representative claim charts regarding
`the '925 patent state that the accused products include LEDs
`with the common features of, one, YAG or TAG-based phosphors;
`two, combined with a nitride compound semiconductor chip, and
`providing corresponding exemplary product information.
`THE COURT:
`Let me ask you this:
`Are you going to
`go into any detail with any products that are not in -- that
`are not detailed in his report?
`
`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. 532, PageID.43944 Filed 05/22/15 Page 15 of 144
`
`15
`
`Your Honor, they are -- all of the
`MR. RIZZI:
`products we are going to present are included in the -- either
`in the report, the body of the report, or in the chart that's
`part of the report.
`We're not going outside the scope of
`what's in his report, including the thousands of products in
`his analysis chart.
`Nor did -- and to be clear, you know, we didn't
`intend that the way it's apparently construed by Plaintiff,
`that what Professor Schubert will present is exemplary of all
`the other products, it's exemplary of his analysis, because
`he can't -- he simply can't present his analysis for 10,000
`products here during trial.
`So to be clear, it's an exemplary analysis of what
`Professor Schubert did to conclude that all of those 10,000
`products infringe, it's not exemplary product.
`The supporting
`information for each and every product, one by one, is included
`in his chart.
`All right.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. RIZZI:
`Is that clear?
`THE COURT:
`Yes, well, somewhat.
`Okay.
`I just want to hear what Mr. Nimrod has to
`say, just about the items we just talked about.
`MR. NIMROD:
`Your Honor, on that last point he has
`a detailed analysis for four products in his report, and that's
`it.
`And you asked him, are you going to get into detailed
`
`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. 532, PageID.43945 Filed 05/22/15 Page 16 of 144
`
`16
`
`Now he
`And the answer was, yes.
`analysis for other products?
`is going to do four more.
`He didn't do the detailed analysis
`for the other four that he is now trying to do.
`That's not in
`his report.
`We weren't able to take his deposition on that
`one.
`They're trying to yank something out of this chart --
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`Stop.
`Is that true, Mr. Rizzi?
`We just
`MR. RIZZI:
`It's not true, your Honor.
`walked through the explanation of his report.
`The analysis in
`his report, he did for each and every one of those products in
`the chart.
`He's not yanking something --
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`Just a minute.
`So Mr. Nimrod is saying there's a detailed
`analysis for only four products and you're saying that's not
`true?
`
`He
`
`No, because Professor Schubert made
`MR. RIZZI:
`clear that that same analysis applied to all the products.
`just didn't -- it made no sense to repeat the identical
`analysis for a thousand products.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`Let me ask you this.
`MR. RIZZI:
`And they did depose Professor Schubert
`on all this, your Honor.
`They had the chart.
`They had his
`full analysis on all the products when they deposed him.
`So
`they could have asked him about any of the products that were
`in the chart.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43946 Filed 05/22/15 Page 17 of 144
`
`17
`
`MR. NIMROD:
`on pages 58 to 66.
`THE COURT:
`
`me.
`
`Your Honor, he gave the full analysis
`
`I don't have that report in front of
`
`I can give you a copy of his opening
`
`MR. RIZZI:
`expert report.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`Okay.
`MR. TRAUPMAN:
`May I, your Honor?
`MR. RIZZI:
`What pages are you handing up?
`MR. TRAUPMAN:
`I handed up the entire report.
`MR. NIMROD:
`Your Honor, on the table of
`
`contents --
`
`Because, like I
`Hold on.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`said, my goal is to always try to start at 8:30 with the jury.
`And when is this going to come up in earnest?
`MR. RIZZI:
`It's going to come up pretty soon,
`
`right away.
`
`Who is the next witness?
`THE COURT:
`Pardon?
`MR. RIZZI:
`Who is the next witness?
`THE COURT:
`Mr. Noguchi, but it's very short
`MR. RIZZI:
`testimony, and then the deposition designations, which is very
`short.
`
`And then there's a little bit
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`of background and foundation that you're going to go into with
`
`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. 532, PageID.43947 Filed 05/22/15 Page 18 of 144
`
`18
`
`Let's do
`
`Dr. Schubert.
`Yes, of course.
`MR. RIZZI:
`How long will that take?
`THE COURT:
`I would say an hour or so.
`MR. RIZZI:
`Okay.
`Let's do that first.
`THE COURT:
`that first and then deal with this issue.
`MR. NIMROD:
`And we'll be able to deal with the
`TAEUS reports, also?
`I take it I'll be able to respond to that
`at that time?
`Yeah, I'll give you a couple minutes.
`THE COURT:
`So you will know where to look,
`MR. RIZZI:
`paragraph 204 is a good place, and then the actual chart
`follows that.
`And, actually, that's the paragraph you quoted
`in your Daubert order.
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`MS. MANKOFSKY:
`One thing that will come up early,
`before any break, are these deposition designations.
`Will you
`be giving the jury an explanation as to what's going on or do
`you want us to do that?
`I'll give them a general explanation.
`THE COURT:
`If there is something else that you think they need to be told,
`I can do that or you can do it.
`MS. MANKOFSKY:
`I think it's just very simple,
`that there was a court reporter, the witnesses were sworn,
`there was a transcript, and we're just reading certain parts
`
`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. 532, PageID.43948 Filed 05/22/15 Page 19 of 144
`
`19
`
`from the transcript, and that two attorneys are playing the
`role of four people.
`And just that the testimony should
`MR. TRAUPMAN:
`be treated the same way as all the other testimony they have
`heard live.
`
`Let's bring the jury in.
`All right.
`THE COURT:
`You know, I'm going to tell the
`All right.
`jury -- they really want to know how long the case is going to
`last.
`I'm going to tell them that it's going to go at least
`into next week, and I think I'm also going to tell them that
`you all have time limits, and that it will definitely go into
`next week.
`
`Do either of you have any objection to my telling
`
`them that?
`
`No, your Honor.
`MR. NIMROD:
`That's fine, your Honor.
`MR. RIZZI:
`Okay.
`THE COURT:
`All rise for the jury.
`THE CLERK:
`(At 8:30 a.m. jury present)
`You can be seated.
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`All right.
`I like to always start with the good
`news, and that's that the Tigers did win last night.
`That was
`a matter of a certain degree of joy here.
`But, secondly, I think some of you have asked how
`long the case is going to take, and it's going to go into next
`
`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. 532, PageID.43949 Filed 05/22/15 Page 20 of 144
`
`20
`
`Probably around Wednesday we might be finished
`
`week for sure.
`I'm not sure.
`You know, in a case like this I have the authority
`to give the parties time limits, and they have a certain amount
`of time to do certain things.
`And I really think if I didn't,
`this case would probably take about a month or two.
`But I've
`set some time limits, and the lawyers, I'm sure, will use all
`the time that I've given them.
`And if they do that, and if
`we're able to at least get about three hours and fifteen
`minutes to three and a half hours per day, we should be able
`to finish at least the evidence and the testimony by midweek.
`And the other part of the case that is not
`terribly time-consuming, but takes up a little bit of time are
`the arguments of the lawyers.
`They get to give their closing
`arguments at the end of the evidence, and then I'll give some
`instructions, and that's going to take a certain amount of
`time, and then your deliberations is another big chunk that's
`really unpredictable.
`Sometimes jurors in relatively simple cases decide
`them in 10 or 15 minutes.
`Other times, it takes several days.
`That part is totally unpredictable and it's really kind of in
`your hands and I don't know how long the deliberations will
`take in regards to this matter.
`I do know that whatever
`verdict form you get, it's going to take a little while to just
`work through that.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43950 Filed 05/22/15 Page 21 of 144
`
`21
`
`But I'm pretty sure it's going to go into probably
`midweek next week.
`So I think I mentioned yesterday that we
`were probably maybe halfway through.
`But anyway, that's about
`as much as I can tell you.
`The pure duration of trial is
`sometimes hard to predict and I've been wrong so many times
`in the past, but I try to keep the case moving as smoothly and
`as efficiently as possible, and I also try to minimize the
`downtime for you all on the case, because we -- I can say, we
`have been in court, it was a little after 8:00, and at 8:30 we
`didn't finish resolving some issues, but I wanted to bring you
`all here in court and get started with whatever we can do up to
`the point that those issues come up.
`So I hope that kind of helps you to figure out
`about how long the case is going to take, because, like I said,
`I thought it would be about two weeks, give or take, and
`that's, I think, what it should be.
`So hopefully that's
`helpful.
`
`Nichia is presenting their case.
`So, let's see.
`And who is going to call the next witness, Mr. Kaminski?
`We
`MR. KAMINSKI:
`Yes.
`Good morning, your Honor.
`would like to recall Yasunobu Noguchi to the stand to discuss
`and authenticate one document, your Honor.
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`Then he may resume the
`witness stand and everyone is still under oath.
`Mr. Noguchi is
`still under oath.
`The interpreters are still under oath.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43951 Filed 05/22/15 Page 22 of 144
`
`22
`
`Yes.
`
`Yes, your Honor.
`
`And Mr. Noguchi, you can tell Mr. Noguchi that
`he's still under oath.
`May I pass this up to you?
`MR. KAMINSKI:
`THE COURT:
`Yes.
`And that he's sworn to tell the truth.
`Ma'am, ma'am, interpreter, just tell him that he's
`sworn to tell the truth.
`INTERPRETER ISOMUCHI:
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`Y A S A N O B U
`N O G U C H I,
`called by the Defendant at 8:35 a.m., previously sworn through
`the interpreter testified as follows:
`REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
`BY MR. KAMINSKI:
`Q.
`Mr. Noguchi, good morning again.
`A.
`Good morning.
`Q.
`I've given you what has been marked as Defendant's
`Exhibit 0401.
`Do you see it?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Do you know what this is?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`What is it?
`A.
`This is an article from the Tokyo newspaper called Nikkei
`Sangyo Shimbun, announcing the successful development of white
`LED.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43952 Filed 05/22/15 Page 23 of 144
`
`23
`
`And when you mean white LED, what are you referring to?
`Q.
`It's the LED that can produce white light when combining a
`A.
`blue LED and a phosphor.
`Q.
`Is this the same project that you testified about
`yesterday and also testified about the day before?
`A.
`That's correct.
`Q.
`If you could please take a look at the screen, and look at
`the Japanese, and could you please confirm that this sentence
`and this article is referring to your white LED invention,
`Mr. Noguchi?
`A.
`Yes, there's no doubt.
`Q.
`And for the record, I'll just read in the English
`translation:
`
`"The white light was emitted with providing a
`layer of YAG, yttrium aluminum garnet-based phosphor on
`a chip of a blue LED."
`Mr. Noguchi, do you remember when you first saw
`this article?
`A.
`That was September 13, 1996, the day this article was
`published.
`Q.
`Do you remember how you received this article on
`September 13, 1996?
`A.
`Back then I was getting information about phosphors
`from -- actually, my department was getting information about
`phosphors from our Tokyo sales office.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43953 Filed 05/22/15 Page 24 of 144
`
`24
`
`I mean, how would
`
`And when did you receive a fax from the Tokyo sales office
`Q.
`with this article?
`A.
`The same day, September 13th, 1996.
`Q.
`And could you please tell the jury, Mr. Noguchi, what kind
`of newspaper is the Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun?
`A.
`This is a business newspaper and anybody who is a business
`person would know.
`Q.
`Is this an article or an advertisement?
`you characterize this article?
`A.
`It's an article.
`Q.
`Do you personally know why this article was created?
`A.
`That's because we provided a press release about our
`successful development of -- Nichia Chemical's successful
`development of white LED.
`Q.
`If you could please take a look at two pictures in the
`article, and if you could please explain them very briefly,
`sir?
`The drawing shows the structure of white LED where, on top
`A.
`of a blue LED chip, a phosphor is injected or input.
`And when
`the light from those, the blue LED and phosphor, when they're
`mixed, create white light.
`Q.
`Mr. Noguchi, are you aware of any similar articles around
`September 1996 announcing the white light LED invention?
`MR. NIMROD:
`Can I have a sidebar, your Honor?
`THE COURT:
`Yeah.
`Let's do that right quick.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43954 Filed 05/22/15 Page 25 of 144
`
`25
`
`(At 8:42 a.m. to 8:43 a.m. sidebar held off the record)
`MR. KAMINSKI:
`Your Honor, I would like to
`withdraw my last question.
`And also, at this time I would
`proffer D0401 into evidence.
`THE COURT:
`0401.
`
`Then it will be
`
`All right.
`
`received.
`
`(Whereupon Defendant's Exhibit D0401 received into
`evidence)
`No further
`Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. KAMINSKI:
`questions on direct examination, re-redirect, whatever
`examination.
`
`All right.
`THE COURT:
`MR. NIMROD: Just a couple questions.
`Good morning, Mr. Noguchi.
`THE WITNESS:
`Good morning.
`MR. NIMROD:
`Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
`JURORS:
`Good morning.
`RECROSS EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. NIMROD:
`Q.
`Mr. Noguchi, just to be clear, the article you're
`referring to was published in Japanese, correct?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And the English translation on the left was not from 1996,
`right?
`A.
`That, I wouldn't know.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43955 Filed 05/22/15 Page 26 of 144
`
`26
`
`So you're not testifying today that that English version
`Q.
`was published in 1996, are you?
`A.
`The Japanese one -- could you repeat the question?
`Q.
`The publication was published in Japanese, correct?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And the translation was prepared for litigation simply to
`provide an English version; do you understand that?
`A.
`I don't know that.
`Q.
`And just -- could you go to the next slide, please.
`The Nikkei Sangyo Shimbun, does that refer to the
`Nikkei Industrial Journal?
`A.
`I only know it by the Japanese name.
`Q.
`Well, what does -- Sangyo Shimbun, doesn't that stand for
`Industrial Journal?
`A.
`Well, what I'm saying is, I know that it's called Nikkei
`Sangyo Shimbun in Japanese, but I don't know what it's called
`in English.
`Q.
`In September 1996, you never saw an English version of
`this article, did you?
`A.
`Correct.
`No further questions.
`MR. NIMROD:
`All right.
`THE COURT:
`No further redirect, your Honor.
`MR. KAMINSKI:
`THE COURT:
`All right.
`Mr. Noguchi may be excused
`and you can tell him that.
`
`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. 532, PageID.43956 Filed 05/22/15 Page 27 of 144
`
`27
`
`All right.
`
`Is the deposition testimony the next
`
`item?
`
`Okay.
`
`Yes, your Honor.
`MR. RIZZI:
`All right.
`Ladies and gentlemen,
`THE COURT:
`you're going to hear some prior testimony of a witness

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