`
`
`
`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.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S FINAL ELECTION OF PRIOR ART
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs (D.I.
`
`44) and Docket Control Order (D.I. 46, 232), Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby discloses
`
`its Final Election of Prior Art for the elected claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,329,794 (“’794
`
`patent”), 6,408,193 (“’193 patent”), 6,430,498 (“’498 patent”), 6,580,999 (“’999 patent”),
`
`6,748,317 (“’317 patent”), 6,928,306 (“’306 patent”), 7,116,438 (“’438 patent”), 8,339,493
`
`(“’493 patent”), 10,212,586 (“’586 patent”), and 10,084,991 (“’991 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”) disclosed by Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (“Maxell”).
`
`Maxell’s Infringement Contentions wholly fail to put Apple on notice of Plaintiff’s
`
`theories of infringement for reasons set forth in, for example, Apple’s Motion to Compel
`
`Compliant Infringement Contentions under P.R. 3-1(g) (D.I. 123, 154), the Court’s Order
`
`Granting Apple’s Motion to Compel (D.I. 204), and Apple’s letter to Maxell on this issue sent on
`
`March 31, 2020. As of the date of this disclosure, Apple has yet to receive infringement
`
`contentions compliant with the local Patent Rules that set forth Maxell’s infringement theories
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2010
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`

`

`
`
`with respect to the source code produced by Apple. Thus, Apple’s election of prior art is based
`
`only on information known to date, including Apple’s current understanding of Maxell’s
`
`deficient infringement contentions. Apple reserves the right to amend its election of prior art as
`
`appropriate, including in response to any further amendments and/or supplement to Maxell’s
`
`Infringement Contentions (if any is permitted by the Court) or to any disclosure of infringement
`
`theories in Maxell’s expert reports for which Apple has not received fair notice.
`
`The Court’s Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs states: “For
`
`purposes of [the] Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, each obviousness combination counts as a
`
`separate prior art reference.” D.I. 204 at 2. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Apple discloses the
`
`following election of prior art.
`
`
`
`Final Election of Asserted Prior Art
`
`The ’317, ’498, and ’999 Patents:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The CyberGuide system (“CyberGuide”)1 in combination with U.S. Patent No.
`6,067,502 to Hayashida et al. (“Hayashida”).
`
`Hayashida in combination with Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10-197277 to
`Maruyama et al. (“Maruyama”)2.
`
`The Garmin NavTalk system (“NavTalk”) in combination with Hayashida.
`
`NavTalk in combination with Maruyama.
`
`
`1 The Court’s Focusing Order specifies that “a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or
`process) and associated references that describe that instrumentality shall count as one
`reference.” D.I. 44 at 1 n. 1. Accordingly, nothing about this election should be read to limit the
`sources of evidence on which Apple intends to rely to prove that such instrumentalities/systems
`are invalidating prior art.
`2 Apple has produced certified translations of all non-English publications identified in its Final
`Election of Prior Art and intends to rely on said translations at trial.
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2010
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’493 Patent:
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,903,162 (“Juen ’162”)3 in combination with U.S. Patent No.
`6,563,535 (“Anderson ’535”).
`
`Juen ’162 and Anderson ’535 in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,444,482
`(“Misawa ’482”).
`
`The Sony MVC-FD83/MVC-FD88 digital cameras (“MVCFD83”).
`
`MVCFD83 in combination with Misawa ’482.
`
`The ’794 Patent:
`
`9.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,363,266 to Nonogaki (“Nonogaki”) in combination with U.S.
`Patent No. 5,870,685 (“Flynn ’685”).
`
`10.
`
`Japanese Utility Model Publication No. U306314 to Tagoshi (“Tagoshi”).
`
`The ’193 Patent:
`
`11.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,548,616 (“Mucke ’616”) in combination with Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. H10-285059 (“Nakayama ’059”).
`
`12.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,236,863 (“Waldroup ’863”) in combination with Mucke ’616.
`
`The ’306 Patent:
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,122,347 (“Borland ’347”).
`
`Borland ’347 in combination with U.S. Patent No. 6,763,105 (“Miura ’105”).
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 1996/027974 (“Van der Salm ’974”) in
`combination with Miura ’105.4
`
`
`3 Apple served an interrogatory seeking Maxell’s contention as to whether it disputes that Juen
`’162 qualifies as prior art to the ’493 Patent. Maxell did not dispute the prior art status of Juen
`’162. See Maxell’s Objections and Responses to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 20 (served March
`30, 2020). To the extent Maxell contests the prior art status of Juen ’162, Apple also elects
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H10-108121, published on April 24, 1998 (“Juen
`’121”), which was filed by the same inventor and contains the same disclosure as Juen ’162. The
`Court’s Focusing Order specifies that “closely related work of a single prior artist” counts as a
`single reference. D.I. 44 at 1 n. 1.
`4 Apple has filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’306 patent. See IPR2020-00204. If the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes IPR2020-00204, Apple will withdraw the Van der Salm
`’974 and Miura ’105 combination from this litigation and will not present the Van der Salm ’974
`and Miura ’105 combination in the district court trial.
`
`3
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2010
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’991 Patent:
`
`16.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,565,680 (“Asmussen ’680”) in combination with U.S. Patent
`Application Publication No. 2003/0041333 (“Allen ’333”).
`
`The ’438 Patent:
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 2003-006110 (“Yamazaki ’110”).
`
`Yamazaki ’110 in combination with U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2003/0149874 (“Balfanz ’874”).
`
`The ’586 Patent:
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,063 (“Schiffer ’063”).
`
`Schiffer ’063 in combination with U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2006/0041746 (“Kirkup ’746”).
`
`
`
`
`
`April 7, 2019
`
`
`/s/ Luann L. 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
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2010
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`
`
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`Bo Moon (Pro Hac Vice)
`bmoon@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: 949-823-6900
`Facsimile: 949-823-6994
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2010
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served this 7th day of April, 2020 with a copy of this document via electronic
`
`mail.
`
`Dated: April 7, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kristin Godfrey
`Kristin Godfrey
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00407
`Maxell Ex. 2010
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`