Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 18949
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Civil Action NO. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
`MAXELL’S OPENING EXPERT REPORTS THAT
`EXCEED THE SCOPE OF MAXELL’S P.R. 3-1 INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`AND NEW EXPERT THEORIES OFFERED AFTER EXPERT REPORTS
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 1 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 18950
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 2 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 18951
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Arterbury v. Odessa Separator, Inc.,
`No. 5:16-CV-00183-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 6700978 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019) ...................... 8
`
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:23-CV-01015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2267283 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019) .................... 5, 7
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-CV-163-JDL, 2016 WL 11673971 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2016)................................. 9
`
`Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`503 F. Supp. 2d 819 (2007) ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Connectel, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`391 F. Supp. 2d 526 (E.D. Tex. 2005) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................... 13
`
`Motorola, Inc. v. Analog Devices, Inc.,
`No. 1:03-CV-131, 2004 WL 5633736 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2004) ...................................... 1, 14
`
`Opal Run LLC v. C&A Marketing, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-24-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 3381344 (E.D. Tex. May 15, 2017) ............................. 7
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley,
`554 F. App’x 923 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Packeteer, Inc.,
`No. 6:08-CV-144, 2009 WL 2590101 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2009) ........................................... 3
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd.,
`63 F. Supp. 3d 690 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) .................................. 8
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i) .................................................................................................... 1, 12
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 3 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 18952
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(CONTINUED)
`
`Page
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) ............................................................................................................. 1, 12
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 4 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 18953
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Local Patent Rule 3-1’s requirement “that a party state it[s] preliminary infringement
`
`contentions shortly after the initial case management conference is specifically designed to
`
`require parties to crystalize their theories of the case, and to prevent a ‘shifting sands’ approach
`
`to patent litigation.” Motorola, Inc. v. Analog Devices, Inc., No. 1:03-CV-131, 2004 WL
`
`5633736, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2004). Yet nearly a year after infringement contentions were
`
`due, Maxell served expert reports that raise new allegations and theories for the first time.
`
`In addition, Rule 26 requires that expert reports contain “a complete statement of all
`
`opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(a)(2)(B)(i). When a party fails to provide the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a),
`
`“the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a
`
`hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`37(c)(1).
`
`Maxell did not provide Apple with notice of these new theories, as required by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District’s Patent Rules, and thus Apple respectfully
`
`requests that the Court grant this motion and strike these new theories.
`
`II. MATERIAL FACTS
`
`Maxell served three sets of infringement contentions. Maxell’s Original Infringement
`
`Contentions were served in June 2019, the P.R. 3-1 deadline. After Apple produced source code,
`
`Maxell served its First Supplemental Infringement Contentions in October 2019. However,
`
`rather than identify “what source code allegedly satisfies the software limitations” as required by
`
`P.R. 3-1(g), this Court found that Maxell cited “a large number of undifferentiated source code
`
`files and folders insufficiently tied to the accused functionalities without explanation.” D.I. 204
`
`at 5. The Court thus ordered Maxell to supplement its contentions. D.I. 223 at 2‒3. In March
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 5 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 18954
`
`2020, Maxell served its Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions (“SSIC”), adding tables
`
`of lists of source code files. Apple objected to the volume of source code listed in those tables,
`
`but Maxell claimed that the “textual description provided in the [Original Infringement]
`
`contentions . . . sets forth the detail necessary to determine the portion of the cited file relied on”
`
`“such that ‘no guessing’ is required to discern the accused functionality.” D.I. 299 at 6; D.I. 338
`
`at 3‒4. Maxell, thus, represented that its contentions included a complete identification of the
`
`infringement arguments to be presented at trial.
`
`Notwithstanding these representations, on May 7 and 14, 2020, Maxell served its opening
`
`expert reports, which assert new and/or unsupported theories, as explained below.
`
`In addition, Maxell’s expert Dr. Tim Williams served an opening expert report on May 7
`
`and a rebuttal report on June 4 on U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586 (the “´586 Patent). In both reports,
`
`Dr. Williams took a consistent position that Claims 1 and 16 are “similar” (see, e.g., Ex. 9
`
`(Williams Report) ¶ 509 (opining on Claim 7 (dependent on Claim 1) and Claim 16), and he
`
`agreed with Apple’s expert Dr. Daniel Menascé that Claim 1 requires a mobile terminal (e.g., a
`
`mobile phone) to perform short-range wireless communications with another mobile terminal
`
`(e.g., a computer) “while both devices are in the locked state.” Ex. 10 (Williams Rebuttal
`
`Report) ¶ 319 (emphasis added). Then, during his deposition, Dr. Williams changed his position,
`
`newly opining that Claims 1 and 16 have a “different” claim scope, and that “in Claim 1, the
`
`state of the mobile terminal is not restricted” to a locked state during such communications,
`
`while in Claim 16, the state allegedly is limited. Ex. 11 (06/25 Williams Tr.) 242:14-243:1. This
`
`opinion not only is new but also directly conflicts with the claims and file history.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 6 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 18955
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Maxell’s New Infringement Theories In Its Opening Expert Reports
`Should Be Struck
`
`The Local Patent Rules “requir[e] a plaintiff to formulate, test, and crystallize their
`
`infringement contentions early in litigation” so that “the case takes a clear path,” narrowing
`
`allegations through discovery, claim construction, and up to trial. Realtime Data, LLC v.
`
`Packeteer, Inc., No. 6:08-CV-144, 2009 WL 2590101, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2009) (citing
`
`Connectel, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 2005)). Local Patent
`
`Rule 3-1(c) requires infringement contentions to identify “specifically where each element of
`
`each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” D.I. 204 at 1. And, to rely
`
`on source code, plaintiffs “must provide a defendant with fair notice of the software
`
`functionalities that are accused when the citations are read in light of the textual disclosures.” Id.
`
`at 4; D.I. 338 at 4. These rules exist to deter “litigation by ambush” and “provide all parties with
`
`adequate notice and information with which to litigate their cases.” Computer Acceleration
`
`Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 503 F. Supp. 2d 819, 822 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Courts
`
`routinely strike expert reports that exceed the scope of infringement contentions because
`
`“[e]xpert infringement reports may not introduce theories not previously set forth in infringement
`
`contentions.” ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd., 63 F. Supp. 3d 690, 699 (E.D. Tex. 2014).
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`404, 405, 420‒423, 432, 488‒493, 496‒498, 502, 504, 513, 516‒517, 538‒539, and 548.
`
` Ex. 1 (Madisetti Report) ¶¶ 366, 378, 390, 393,
`
`
`
`3
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 7 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 18956
`
`
`
` Ex. 1 (Madisetti Report) ¶ 421 (emphasis added).
`
` Id. ¶ 422
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Maxell even admitted as much in its Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Compel
`
`Infringement Contentions when it argued that “[a]s to the ‘mixing and culling’ element of 5(e),
`
`Maxell points to just one infringing functionality—downsampling (or ‘downscaling’) of image
`
`data—in its contentions.” D.I. 299 at 3 (emphasis in original).
`
` Id. at 4 (emphasis added).
`
` See Ex. 1 ¶ 315, 490, 492.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 8 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 18957
`
`
` Ex. 4 (SSIC Appx. 3 at Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Ex. 2.
`
`
`
` Ex. 2 at 241.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`4 and 6) at 152, 292.
`
` See Ex. 3 (’493 SSIC at Appendix 3-A) at 14‒15.
`
` Ex. 1 (Madisetti Report) ¶ 315.
`
` Ex. 2 at 249‒264.
`
`
`
`(Madisetti Report) ¶¶ 422‒424.
`
`5
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 9 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 18958
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 10 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 18959
`
` Ex. 5 (’193 Vojcic Report) at 2076
`
`
`
` 2085
`
` Ex. 6 (’193 Crockett Report) at 21-
`
`22.
`
`
`
` Ex. 5 (’193 Vojcic Report) at 2087-2088
`
`(emphasis and annotation added); Ex. 6 (’193 Crockett Report) at 27-28.
`
`
`
`
`
` See Opal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Run LLC v. C&A Marketing, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-24-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 3381344, at *2 (E.D.
`
`Tex. May 15, 2017) (striking where the “[t]he HTML code Opal Run identified in its opening
`
`contentions is fundamentally different from the XML code identified in the Loftgard report”);
`
`Biscotti, 2017 WL 2267283, at *3 (striking Broadcast API infringement theory where plaintiff’s
`
`contentions “do not include citations to the relevant Broadcast API source code”).
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`theory was neither disclosed in Maxell’s infringement contentions nor properly explained in Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s report. See Ex. 1 (Madisetti Report) ¶¶ 125, 550, 633‒635.
`
` Ex. 1 (Madisetti Report) ¶¶ 633-34. This
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 11 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 18960
`
`
`While Maxell did disclose a (conclusory) DOE theory in its infringement contentions for
`
`claim element [6.b]1, Maxell did not disclose this DOE theory. See Ex. 4 (SSIC Appx. 3), at
`
`293. Claim element [6.b] involves two separate functions—(1) an image-instability detector
`
`detects instability, (2) an image procesex.sor generates an image using the amount of instability
`
`detected.
`
` Id. at 293 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
` Ex. 1 (Madisetti Report) ¶ 634 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Courts in this District regularly strike new DOE theories from expert reports that were
`
`not disclosed or were not adequately disclosed in infringement contentions. See e.g., Sycamore
`
`IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953, at *6 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Oct. 10, 2017) (striking DOE from expert report because plaintiffs failed to amend its
`
`
`1 Apple is challenging the disclosed, conclusory DOE theory by separate motion.
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 12 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 18961
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 13 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 18962
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 14 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 18963
`
`
`
`E.g., Ex. 10 (Williams Rebuttal Report) ¶ 417 (emphasis added). According to Dr. Williams’s
`
`expert report, if the first mobile device is “unlocked prior to” the “short-range wireless
`
`communication” for Claim 1 there is a “plain violation of the second condition.” Id. ¶ 420.
`
`In fact, Dr. Williams applied this understanding of the requirement that both devices must
`
`be in a locked state during short-range communications to try to distinguish prior art. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 10 (Williams Rebuttal Report) ¶¶ 319, 325, 326 (attempting to distinguish the Schiffer
`
`reference from Claim 1 because Schiffer’s mobile phone purportedly does not communicate with
`
`its computer system while both devices are in a locked state); see also ¶¶ 404, 411, 417, 418,
`
`420, 431, 433, 436 (distinguishing the Schiffer/Kirkup combination from Claim 1 allegedly for
`
`the same reason). For Claim 16, Dr. Williams’s validity opinion incorporated his Claim 1
`
`analysis and did not mention any material difference between the second condition of Claim 1
`
`and the second condition of Claim 16. See, e.g., Ex. 10 (Williams Rebuttal Report) ¶¶ 348, 468.
`
`In his deposition, however, Dr. Williams made an about-face and presented an entirely
`
`new and contradictory opinion, asserting that “Claim 16 is different than Claim 1” because “in
`
`Claim 1, the state of the mobile terminal is not restricted in Element 1F” (the “second”
`
`condition) to a locked state. Ex. 11 (06/25 Williams Tr.) 242:14-243:1. According to Dr.
`
`Williams’s new theory, the “mobile terminal” and the “another mobile terminal” do not both
`
`need to be locked in in order to satisfy, for instance, element 1(f) (Ex. 11 (06/25 Williams Tr.)
`
`242:14-243:1)—in contradiction with his expert reports. See, e.g., Ex. 10 (Williams Rebuttal
`
`Report) ¶¶ 319, 404, 417, 418. Instead, according to Dr. Williams in his deposition, Claim 1
`
`“doesn’t restrict” the first mobile terminal Ex. 11 (06/25 Williams Tr.) 239:23-24, 240:22-24),
`
`which could be “unlocked.” Id. at 242:10-13.
`
`11
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 15 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 18964
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Williams’s Undisclosed Expert Opinion Should Be Excluded as
`Untimely and Prejudicial.
`
`Dr. Williams’s new opinion should be excluded because it was not disclosed in expert
`
`reports. Rather than providing Apple with “a complete statement of all opinions [Dr. Williams]
`
`will express and the basis and reasons for them” as required under Rule 26 (Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(a)(2)(B)(i)), in his deposition, Dr. Williams contradicted his expert reports and offered new
`
`opinions. After providing an opinion that Claims 1 and 16 are similar, and relying on the
`
`requirement that the mobile terminals must both be in locked states during short-range
`
`communications in an attempt to distinguish prior art, Dr. Williams later seeks to contradict
`
`those opinions with a new opinion that for Claim 1. This clearly violates Rule 26, and neither
`
`Apple nor Apple’s expert had a full and fair opportunity to respond to this new theory during
`
`expert discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (a party is not allowed to use information it did
`
`not disclose as required by Rule 26(a)).
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Williams’s New Opinion is An Unreliable Claim Construction
`Opinion That Conflicts with the Claims and File History.
`
`Dr. Williams’s new opinion also is excludable for a separate, independent reason: it is
`
`unreliable opinion regarding claim construction. The claim construction order in this case issued
`
`over three months ago. D.I. 235. Briefing on claim construction was completed three months
`
`before the order. At no point did Maxell present an interpretation that Claim 1 was different
`
`from Claim 16. Indeed, until last week, Dr. Williams “agree[d] with [Apple’s expert] Dr.
`
`Menascé” that the two mobile terminals in ’586 Patent Claims 1 and 16 “must perform short-
`
`range wireless communications . . . while both devices are in the locked state” in order to satisfy
`
`the claims. Ex. 10 (Williams Rebuttal Report) ¶¶ 319, 348. If Maxell wanted to argue that the
`
`claims had different claim scope, the time to do so was last year. At this point, allowing Dr.
`
`Williams to “argue claim construction” would only confuse the jury, and would not help the
`
`12
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 16 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 18965
`
`jury determine any fact issue. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009); Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`
`
`Dr. Williams’s new argument that Claim 1 and Claim 16 have “different” claim scopes
`
`with respect to whether the devices are in a “locked state” also is unreliable. As can be seen by
`
`the plain claim language, there is no such distinction in Claim 1 and Claim 16 regarding the
`
`locked states of the two devices. See, e.g., Ex. 12 (’586 Patent) Claim 1 and Claim 16 at “first,”
`
`“second,” and “third,” and see comparison supra. These conditions, “order of operations,” and
`
`the requirement that both devices were in a “locked state” while communicating, moreover, were
`
`added by the applicant to gain allowance of the claims, as Dr. Williams knows. See generally
`
`Ex. 10 (Williams Rebuttal Report) ¶¶ 94-105. As Dr. Williams cited, the examiner indicated that
`
`“claim 1 should be amended to clarify the sequence of steps” in order to overcome a rejection.
`
`Id. ¶ 94; see also ¶ 95 (again discussing “sequence of steps”). In May 2018, the examiner again
`
`rejected Claim 1 stating that it “did not specify the conditions and/or functions in an order of
`
`[o]perations to overcome the current rejection.” See id. ¶ 100. The applicant amended claim 1
`
`“to include an order of operations” (see id. ¶ 101), adding the “first,” “second,” and “third”
`
`conditions (see id. ¶ 102), and noted that these changes specified the “particular order of
`
`processing.” See id. ¶ 103. As Dr. Williams’s expert report also noted, the applicant
`
`distinguished the prior art by arguing that prior art did not “teach both devices communicating
`
`with each other when both are in a locked state.” Id. ¶ 104 (emphasis added). After a further
`
`amendment, the claims were allowed. Id. ¶ 105. Dr. Williams should not be permitted to present
`
`unreliable, new, and unsupported positions to the jury that conflict with the claims and the file
`
`history.
`
`C.
`
`Exclusion Is Necessary To Prevent Prejudice
`
`Maxell’s eleventh hour disclosures of infringement theories severely prejudiced Apple.
`
`13
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 17 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18966
`
`
`Apple was forced to analyze and respond to those new allegations in the just one month it had to
`
`respond to all 12 of Maxell’s opening expert reports. Maxell’s shifting sands approach to patent
`
`litigation violates Local Patent Rule 3-1. See, e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. Analog Devices, Inc., No.
`
`1:03-CV-131, 2004 WL 5633736, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2004). Excluding these portions of
`
`Maxell’s opening expert reports and precluding Maxell from asserting new allegations and
`
`theories is necessary to prevent further prejudice to Apple.
`
`In addition, for new opinions offered by Dr. Williams in deposition, switching positions
`
`from those presented in his opening and rebuttal expert reports, not only has Apple not had a full
`
`and fair opportunity to respond to explore or respond to such opinions during expert discovery,
`
`but those opinions also are unreliable and contradicted by the claims. The new opinions should
`
`be excluded.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons above, Apple respectfully requests the Court strike the portions of
`
`Maxell’s opening expert reports discussed above, and to preclude Dr. Williams from offering
`
`opinions that contradict those disclosed in his expert reports.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 18 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 18967
`
`June 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Luann Simmons
`
`Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou (Pro Hac Vice)
`vzhou@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Marc J. Pensabene (Pro Hac Vice)
`mpensabene@omm.com
`Laura Bayne Gore (Pro Hac Vice)
`lbayne@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)
`melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`15
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 19 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 385 Filed 07/02/20 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 18968
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2021
`
`Page 20 of 20
`
`