`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO.,
`LTD., and EMCORE CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiffs/Counter-
`Defendants,
`
`
`v.
`
`NICHIA CORPORATION, and
`NICHIA AMERICA CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants/Counter-
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EVERLIGHT AMERICAS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:12-CV-11758 GAD-MKM
`Hon. Gershwin A. Drain
`
`
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EVERLIGHT’S SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ITS NOTICE OF
`LODGING OF TRIAL DEMONSTRATIVES (DKT. # 521)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 539, PageID.44344 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`On May 14, 2015, Everlight submitted its Notice of Lodging of Trial
`
`Demonstratives (Dkt. 521) (“Notice”). At the May 18, 2015 Status Conference,
`
`the Court asked Everlight to file a memorandum in support of its Notice. For the
`
`reasons set forth below, Everlight should be allowed to lodge trial demonstratives
`
`so that any reviewing court has access to the demonstratives to provide context for
`
`testimony and argument discussing them.
`
`To be clear, Everlight is not seeking to admit into evidence the
`
`demonstratives identified in the Notice; Everlight merely wishes to ensure the
`
`record is complete so that any court reviewing the jury’s verdict – this Court in
`
`connection with the parties’ post-trial motions and, later, the Federal Circuit – has
`
`the benefit of seeing exactly what was presented to jury. Everlight also would not
`
`object to Nichia similarly lodging, but not admitting into evidence, its trial
`
`demonstratives. Indeed, Everlight believes that the best course is for both parties
`
`to lodge their demonstratives with the Court so that this Court and eventually the
`
`Federal Circuit have access to the images that are discussed in the trial transcript.
`
`I.
`
`LODGING DEMONSTRATIVES IS APPROPRIATE
`
`It has become common practice for parties to use demonstratives to facilitate
`
`presentation of difficult concepts at trial. Recognizing this, courts have allowed,
`
`and even required, that demonstratives be lodged as part of the docket, so that they
`
`are available to the court during any review of the record. For example, in
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 539, PageID.44345 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`Astrazeneca AB v. Mylan Labs., Inc. (In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation), 490 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 381, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), the court overruled objections to plaintiffs’
`
`submission of demonstratives with its proposed findings of fact, stating that “[t]he
`
`demonstratives are included in Plaintiffs’ submission for the convenience of the
`
`Court, and Plaintiffs properly rely on the expert testimony concerning each
`
`demonstrative that was discussed at trial and exhibits that were listed on the
`
`demonstrative and properly admitted at trial.” In another discussion of filing
`
`demonstratives, the court in Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.,
`
`986 F. Supp. 2d 574, 595 (W.D. Pa. 2013), noted that one particular expert had
`
`testified over two days using over 130 slides. When discussing that testimony, the
`
`court acknowledged that “the transcript may not always be clear on what parts of a
`
`diagram are being described by witnesses.” Id. at 595, fn. 31. To aid in its
`
`understanding of the transcript, the Carnegie Melon court required the parties to
`
`file all demonstratives used during the trial. Id.
`
`The Federal Circuit has also at least tacitly approved the practice of lodging
`
`demonstrative exhibits with the trial court when, on appeal, the Federal Circuit
`
`considered properly filed demonstratives but refused to consider demonstratives
`
`that were not filed and made part of the record below. See Finisar Corp. v.
`
`DirecTV Grp., Inc., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 4092 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2007) (Ex. 1).
`
`In Finisar, the Federal Circuit stated that “[b]ecause the demonstrative exhibits
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 539, PageID.44346 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`were not filed with the district court, they are not part of the record on appeal and
`
`thus should not be included in the joint appendix. Finisar has not shown that the
`
`record should be corrected to include demonstrative exhibits that were not filed
`
`with the district court, especially when other demonstrative exhibits were filed
`
`with the district court.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`II. THE PARTIES HERE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO LODGE
`DEMONSTRATIVES FOR CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY
`
`Everlight seeks to file its demonstratives with this Court for the same
`
`reasons that other courts have allowed submission of demonstratives – for the
`
`convenience of the Court and to aid in the Court’s understanding of the trial
`
`transcript. Everlight is not seeking to use the demonstratives as substantive
`
`evidence. It seeks to make them a part of the record solely to provide context and
`
`clarity for testimony that refers to the demonstratives.
`
`For example, during his direct examination, Everlight’s expert Dr. Eric
`
`Bretschneider referred to more than 140 slides. One of those slides, slide 35,
`
`illustrates the basic structure of an LED Package. See Slide 35 (Dkt. 521-4, Ex. 4
`
`at 3). Dr. Bretschneider used this slide in connection with his testimony to
`
`describe how someone would add a phosphor to an LED package:
`
`Q. Okay. If we go on to slide 35, if someone wanted to add a
`phosphor into the LED package, how would they go about doing
`that?
`A. The resin here, this is typically an epoxy or silicon
`material that hardens when you heat it up and the easiest way
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 539, PageID.44347 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 7
`
`is to put the phosphor in the resin here and then put the lens
`on top later.
`
`Apr. 9, 215 Tr. at 16:2-8.
`
`
`
`Everlight also used a number of slides during its cross-examination of
`
`Nichia’s expert, Dr. E. Fred Schubert, including demonstratives displaying the CIE
`
`chromaticity diagram and plotting the coordinates of certain phosphor samples on
`
`that diagram. See, e.g., PDX-1412, PDX-1413, PDX-1414 (Dkt. 521-8, Ex. 9 at 8-
`
`10). The CIE chromaticity diagram illustrates points of color and wavelength on a
`
`grid, and the ability to refer to specific slides provides context for questions and
`
`answers, such as:
`
`Q. Then add the coordinates, please, for [PDX] 1414. Do
`you see we have produced the coordinates [for Sample
`17], and if we plot that, it ends up in the yellow/green
`zone, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Apr. 17, 2015 Tr. at 85:5-11. As in Carnegie Mellon, having the demonstratives
`
`available for review will assist the Court’s understanding of the transcript.
`
`
`
`As noted above, Everlight is not seeking to admit into evidence any of the
`
`demonstratives that it submitted with its Notice. Rather, Everlight simply seeks to
`
`make the demonstratives part of the Court’s record so that any reviewing court has
`
`the opportunity to review the demonstratives to provide context to testimony. This
`
`is especially important for appeal purposes in light of the Federal Circuit’s refusal
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 539, PageID.44348 Filed 06/01/15 Page 6 of 7
`
`to expand the appellate record in Finisar. Everlight believes that the Court and the
`
`parties are all best served by ensuring that all the slides about which witnesses
`
`testified are available for any review in connection with post trial motions or any
`
`appeal. To this end, Everlight has no objection and in fact encourages Nichia to
`
`also lodge the demonstratives that it used at trial for the same purpose.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated herein, Everlight respectfully requests that the Court
`
`allow Everlight to lodge the trial demonstratives that Everlight submitted with
`
`Docket 521.
`
`DATED: June 1, 2015
`
`Raymond N. Nimrod
`Matthew A. Traupman
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`(212) 849-7000
`raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Matthew A. Traupman
`A. Michael Palizzi (P47262)
`MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK
` AND STONE, P.L.C.
`150 West Jefferson, Ste. 2500
`Detroit, Michigan 48226
`(313) 963-4620
`palizzi@millercanfield.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM ECF No. 539, PageID.44349 Filed 06/01/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all
`
`counsel of record by ECF on June 1, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew A. Traupman
`
`6
`
`