Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 8748
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC., PANASONIC
`LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CO.,
`LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO.
`LTD.
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`C.A. 2:20-cv-00283-JRG
`[LEAD CASE]
`
`C.A. 2:20-cv-00284-JRG
`C.A. 2:20-cv-00285-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`CERTAIN EXPERT OPINIONS OF DR. E. FRED SCHUBERT
`
`US 8410666
`
`Page 1
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 8749
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`Legal Standards ................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Daubert Standard .................................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 2
`C.
`Failure to Provide Discovery .................................................................................. 3
`Dr. Schubert’s Improper and Untimely Claim Construction Opinions Should be
`Stricken. .............................................................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Dr. Schubert Provides Opinions That Contradict the Plain Terms of the
`Court’s Claim Construction Order. ......................................................................... 4
`Dr. Schubert Provides Opinions That Constitute New and Untimely Claim
`Construction Argument. .......................................................................................... 5
`Dr. Schubert’s Opinions That Improperly Rely on Previously Undisclosed and
`Inconsistent Witness Statements Regarding Technical Aspects of the Accused
`Products Should Be Stricken. ............................................................................................. 8
`A.
`Dr. Schubert Relied on Statements from TMC Employee Ms. Yinghua Mo
`to Present Technical Information. ........................................................................... 8
`Ms. Mo’s Statements are Unreliable and Inconsistent with Prior Testimony
`and the Record. ....................................................................................................... 9
`Ms. Mo’s New Statements Regarding Technical Information Disclose
`Information That Was Not Previously Disclosed by TMC in Response to
`Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. ..................................................................................... 10
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`US 8410666
`
`-i-
`
`Page 2
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 8750
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 1-12-CV-580, 2014 WL 11462450 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2014) ........................................... 4
`Battcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 3
`BMC Software, Inc. v. Servicenow, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-903-JRG, 2016 WL 367251 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2016) .................................... 2, 4
`Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C.,
`482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 5
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG, 2015 WL 4944514 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2015) .................................. 4
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 2
`CQ, Inc. v. TXU Min. Co., L.P.,
`565 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 3
`CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventara Med. Sys.,
`424 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 2
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ................................................................................................................ 1, 2
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:10-CV-379 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 12911053 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2012) ............................ 4
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
`No. 2:15-CV-11-RSP, 2017 WL 5137401 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017), reversed on other
`grounds, 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................... 5
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 2
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.,
`No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3475688 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2016) .............................. 2, 4
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 2:19-CV-00071-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 4288323 (E.D. Tex. July 26, 2020) ....................... 12
`Guidry v. Cont’l Oil Co.,
`640 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp.,
`No. 6:18-CV-298-JRG, 2019 WL 999902 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2019) ....................................... 3
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`US 8410666
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 3
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 8751
`
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.,
`449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 2
`MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson,
`664 F.3d 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 2
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996) ................................................................................................................ 4
`Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Grp. Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-586-JRG-RSP, 2019 WL 8110069 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2019) .................... 3, 5, 6
`Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc.,
`288 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 2
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc.,
`415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 5
`Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,
`685 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Sobrino-Barrera v. Anderson Shipping Co.,
`495 F. App’x 430 (5th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 3
`Ultravision Techs., LLC v. GoVision LLC,
`No. 2:18-CV-100-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 2144788 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2021) ......................... 2, 4
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-651-JRG, 2019 WL 2267212 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2019) ..................................... 3
`Versata Software Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-153 CE, 2011 WL 13136604 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2011) ..................................... 12
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) ................................................................................................................. 11
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) ................................................................................................................. 3, 11
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`US 8410666
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 4
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 8752
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Japan Display Inc. (“JDI”) and Panasonic Liquid Display Co., Ltd. (“PLD”)
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), move to exclude certain expert opinions of Dr. E. Fred Schubert that
`assert improper claim construction opinions and depend on inconsistent and unreliable statements
`of Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd.’s (“TMC”) corporate representative, Ms. Yinghua Mo,
`containing information not previously disclosed to Plaintiffs.
`On October 15, 2021, TMC served the rebuttal expert report from Dr. Schubert, see Ex. 1,
`regarding claimed non-infringement of certain Asserted Patents. In his report, Dr. Schubert
`inappropriately assert opinions regarding how certain claims should be construed, which should
`be excluded as either conflicting with the court’s Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`(“Claim Construction Order,” Dkt. No. 123) or as presenting new, untimely proposals for
`construction. Further, Dr. Schubert relies on statements regarding technical aspects of TMC’s
`products provided to him by TMC’s corporate representative, Ms. Yinghua Mo, which should be
`excluded as being inconsistent with prior testimony and the record, and presenting technical
`information that was never disclosed to Plaintiffs during the discovery process, despite discovery
`requests specifically seeking such technical information. Plaintiffs respectfully assert that these
`opinions are inappropriate and should be excluded.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Daubert Standard
`Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, an expert witness with “scientific, technical, or other
`specialized knowledge” may provide opinion testimony only if “(a) the expert’s scientific,
`technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
`to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony
`is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
`principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Daubert v. Merrell
`Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93, 597 (1993). The court’s role in applying Rule 702 “is
`limited to that of a gatekeeper,” ensuring that an expert’s testimony rests on a reliable foundation
`
`US 8410666
`
`-1-
`
`Page 5
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 8753
`
`
`“so as to be appropriate for the jury’s consideration.” BMC Software, Inc. v. Servicenow, Inc., No.
`2:14-CV-903-JRG, 2016 WL 367251, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2016) (Gilstrap, J.) (citing Pipitone
`v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2002)); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137, 141-42 (1999). Under the Daubert standard, the court must also conclude that
`testimony is helpful to the jury. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591.
`
`Claim Construction
`B.
`The court is the sole arbiter of claim construction disputes. See Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart
`Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“No party may contradict the court’s
`construction to a jury.”). Thus, “[a]n expert is bound by the claim construction set forth by the
`Court.” See Ultravision Techs., LLC v. GoVision LLC, No. 2:18-CV-100-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL
`2144788, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2021) (Payne, Mag. J.). Incorrect claim construction statements
`go to the relevance of the expert’s opinion, and thus form a basis to exclude an expert’s opinion.
`See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209, 1224 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(affirming exclusion of expert’s testimony because it was based on an impermissible claim
`construction). “Expert opinions that contradict or disregard a court's claim constructions should
`be excluded.” Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2016
`WL 3475688, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2016) (Payne, Mag. J.) (citing MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson &
`Johnson, 664 F.3d 907, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“expert testimony [that] ignored the court's claim
`construction ‘is irrelevant to the question of infringement’ and is inadmissible under Daubert”);
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Expert testimony
`regarding claim construction is not admissible. See CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventara Med. Sys., 424
`F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Counsel may not argue claim construction to the jury. Cordis,
`561 F.3d at 1337.
`With respect to untimely claim construction opinions, “[w]here a court has prescribed
`specific claim construction procedures and the parties have proceeded towards trial in reliance
`thereon, the court has discretion to preclude parties from injecting new claim construction theories
`on the eve of trial.” Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Grp. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-586-JRG-RSP, 2019
`
`US 8410666
`
`-2-
`
`Page 6
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 8754
`
`
`WL 8110069, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2019) (Payne, Mag. J.) (quoting Intellectual Ventures II
`LLC v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 6:18-CV-298-JRG, 2019 WL 999902, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`28, 2019) (Gilstrap, J.) (quoting Battcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 640–41
`(Fed. Cir. 2011)) (internal marks omitted)).
`
`Failure to Provide Discovery
`C.
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), “[i]f a party fails to provide information or
`identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), 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.” Rule 37 “empowers the courts to impose sanctions for
`failures to obey discovery orders.” Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 685 F.3d
`486, 488 (5th Cir. 2012). “Rule 37 only requires the sanction the court imposes hold the scales of
`justice even.” Guidry v. Cont’l Oil Co., 640 F.2d 523, 533 (5th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation
`marks and citation omitted).
`Four factors guide the court’s exercise of discretion in evaluating whether to exclude
`evidence under Rule 37. CQ, Inc. v. TXU Min. Co., L.P., 565 F.3d 268, 280 (5th Cir. 2009); Uniloc
`USA, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-651-JRG, 2019 WL 2267212, at *3 (E.D.
`Tex. May 28, 2019). These factors are: “(1) [the untimely party’s] explanation for its failure to
`disclose the evidence, (2) the importance of the evidence, (3) the potential prejudice to [the
`objecting party] in allowing the evidence, and (4) the availability of a continuance.” CQ, 565 F.3d
`at 280. Failure to provide any justification for its untimely disclosure weighs heavily in favor of
`striking the disclosure and may even be sufficient standing alone to support exclusion. Sobrino-
`Barrera v. Anderson Shipping Co., 495 F. App’x 430, 433 (5th Cir. 2012).
`
`US 8410666
`
`-3-
`
`Page 7
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8755
`
`
`III.
`
`DR. SCHUBERT’S IMPROPER AND UNTIMELY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`OPINIONS SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
`A.
`Dr. Schubert Provides Opinions That Contradict the Plain Terms of the
`Court’s Claim Construction Order.
`As courts in this District have routinely held, “[e]xpert opinions that contradict or disregard
`a court’s claim constructions should be excluded.” Genband, 2016 WL 3475688, at *4.1
`Here, Dr. Schubert asserts opinions inconsistent with the Claim Construction Order.
`Connection Part. For claim 1 of ’665 patent,
`
`164. Dr. Schubert interprets the ’665 patent’s “connection part”
`
`See id. ¶¶ 90, 92. Moreover, Dr. Schubert goes so far as to say that “
`
`
`
` Ex. 1, ¶¶ 87,
`
`.
`
`
`.” Id. at ¶ 92. But it is not for Dr. Schubert to define that term,
`because “the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within
`the province of the court.” See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 116 S. Ct. 1384, 1387
`(1996). Here, the court already construed “connection part” in the Claim Construction Order,
`which held the “‘connection part’ means ‘a first connection section connectable to a second
`connection section.’” Dkt. No. 123 at 38. Dr. Schubert’s opinion is inconsistent because it seeks
`to place further limitations on where the “first connection section” and “second connection
`section” must be located. These further limitations could have been, but were not, raised in TMC’s
`
`1 See also BMC Software, 2016 WL 367251, at *2 (“IT IS ORDERED that no experts are to render any conclusions
`regarding the scope of the patents-in-suit or particular claim limitations that contradict or deviate from this court’s
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order . . . and any portions of their reports in conflict with this Order are
`stricken.”); ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG, 2015 WL 4944514, at *4
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2015) (Gilstrap, J.) (same); Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 6:10-CV-
`379 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 12911053, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2012) (Love, Mag. J.) (barring expert testimony
`“inconsistent with the Court’s claim construction”); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1-12-CV-
`580, 2014 WL 11462450, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2014) (Clark, J.) (barring expert from opining that claim required
`an element that was specifically excluded from the agreed construction); Ultravision Techs, 2021 WL 2144788, at *4-
`5 (striking expert opinion that embodiment was excluded, when that embodiment was expressly included in the court’s
`claim construction order).
`
`US 8410666
`
`-4-
`
`Page 8
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 8756
`
`
`claim construction briefing and are, therefore, untimely (and incorrect). Thus, Dr. Schubert’s
`opinion in paragraphs 87-106 and 164-174 in Exhibit 1, which encompass Dr. Schubert’s claimed
`non-infringement opinion for the representative products based on this improper claim
`construction, should be stricken.
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Schubert Provides Opinions That Constitute New and Untimely Claim
`Construction Argument.
`“[W]here a court has prescribed specific claim construction procedures and the parties have
`proceeded towards trial in reliance thereon, the court has discretion to preclude parties from
`injecting new claim construction theories on the eve of trial.” See Music Choice, No. 2:16-CV-
`586-JRG-RSP, 2019 WL 8110069, at *3. Thus, courts in this District have rejected attempts to
`re-address claim construction after the claim construction phase of the case has ended, as it has
`here. See id. at *4.2 Here, Dr. Schubert goes beyond assessing the plain and ordinary meaning of
`claim terms, and instead asserts opinions that are arguments for new constructions not addressed
`during the claim construction phase of this case.
`Pixel Regions. For claim 1 of each of the ’118, ’119, and ’429 patents, Dr. Schubert opines
`
`
`
` Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 227, 243 (emphasis original),
`245, 251. Dr. Schubert reaches this conclusion by construing the term “pixel region”
`
` See id. at
`¶ 227; see also id. at ¶¶ 228-51. Dr. Schubert’s construction is flawed for a number of reasons—
`not the least of which being that the claim language itself defines the pixel region as a region on
`
`that
`
`2 See also Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-11-RSP, 2017 WL 5137401, at *15 (E.D.
`Tex. Nov. 4, 2017) (Payne, Mag. J.), reversed on other grounds, 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also Cent.
`Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C., 482 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (upholding
`district court’s finding that defendant “waived any argument with respect to this [claim] term by failing to raise it
`during the claim construction phase”); SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`(upholding district court’s refusal to entertain claim construction arguments presented after the cur-off dates under the
`district’s patent local rules).
`
`US 8410666
`
`-5-
`
`Page 9
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 8757
`
`
`the substrate where the TFT element, pixel electrode, and counter electrode are formed. See, e.g.,
`Ex. 7 (’429 patent) at 30:17-23 (claim 1). Nothing is mentioned in claim 1 or in the specification
`about defining a pixel region a
` Yet Dr. Schubert
`defends his construction by a
`
`
`. See Ex. 1 at ¶ 235. While such arguments are demonstrably false, they are
`further evidence that Dr. Schubert is attempting to usurp the role of the court in determining the
`meaning and scope of the claims.
`In its preliminary invalidity contentions, TMC identified the term “a plurality of pixel
`regions defined by the drain signal lines and the gate signal lines” as lacking written description
`and enablement support because “the patent describes that the pixel regions are defined by the
`black matrix.” Ex. 3 at 21 (claim 1, ’119 patent), 29 (claim 1, ’118 patent), 33 (claim 1, ’429
`patent). TMC did not pursue that argument nor did it propose any construction for the term “pixel
`region,” and the court did not address “pixel region” in the Claim Construction Order.3
`Dr. Schubert goes beyond an attempt to address the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “pixel
`region,” and instead argues for a whole new construction to avoid infringement. Dr. Schubert’s
`proposed construction is untimely (and lacks merit); therefore, Dr. Schubert’s opinion regarding
`the ’118, ’119, and ’429 patents in paragraphs 226-51 in Exhibit 1, which encompass
`Dr. Schubert’s non-infringement opinion for the representative products based on this improper
`claim construction, should be stricken.4 If Dr. Schubert’s late claim construction is not stricken,
`Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to order supplemental claim construction briefing so the
`Court can construe the term on an appropriate record.
`
`3 During claim construction, TMC argued that two terms encompassing the “pixel region” language were indefinite.
`See Dkt. No. 123 at 11, 17. For both of these terms, TMC clearly understood the “pixel region” was located on the
`TFT substrate and did not propose the construction posited in Dr. Schubert’s report. Id.
`4 In Footnote 5 of his report, Dr. Schubert remarks that “
`
`
`
` Ex. 1 at 127 n.5. While Dr. Schubert fails to explain this argument in any detail, Plaintiffs note that this
`argument was not raised in TMC’s Invalidity Contentions and should also be stricken as untimely.
`
`US 8410666
`
`-6-
`
`Page 10
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 8758
`
`
`Window-shaped. For claim 1 of the ’142 patent, which requires, in part, “a window-
`shaped opening part formed by partially removing the lower electrode for connecting the upper
`electrode wiring and the upper electrode, and wherein one end portion of the electric field opening
`part in the longitudinal direction around the window-shaped opening part is disposed to be
`overlapped with the window-shaped opening part in a plan view,” (emphasis added), Dr. Schubert
`opines that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 1 at ¶ 60; see also, id. at ¶ 59 (
`
`).
`Dr. Schubert apparently construes the term “window-shaped” in two parts. First, in
`deposition Dr. Schubert stated that
`
` See Ex. 6 at 94:5-8.
`
`Then, he stated that
`
` Id. at 94:12-14; 93:1-93:11 (
`
` Id. at 94:9-12. He excluded
`
`; 92:6-7 (
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`).
`Dr. Schubert’s limitation on the meaning of “window-shaped” is not supported by the
`specification or the claims. While the figures of the specification depict square window-shaped
`opening parts 100, nothing in the specification limits “window-shaped” to squares. See Ex. 8 (’142
`
`US 8410666
`
`-7-
`
`Page 11
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 8759
`
`
`patent) at Figs. 9-15. The specification merely states that the window-shaped opening have a
`“window-like shape;” no more detail is provided. Id. at 9:59-62. Dr. Schubert acknowledges that
` See Ex. 2 at
`¶ 130. Moreover, the claims do not provide any limitations on the meaning of “window-shaped.”
`See Ex. 8 at claims 1-9.
`Moreover, TMC did not raise, and the court did not address in the Claim Construction
`Order, the term “window-shaped” in the ’142 patent. TMC has been on notice of Plaintiff’s
`infringement theory for representative product TL062FVMC70 since at least January 6, 2021,
`when preliminary infringement contentions were served, which was well before the claim
`construction phase of this case. See Shallman Decl. at ¶ 11. Dr. Schubert’s construction of the
`term “window-shaped” is, therefore, untimely and improperly narrows the meaning of that term to
`avoid infringement. Dr. Schubert’s opinion regarding the ’142 patent in paragraphs 59-60 in
`Exhibit 1, which encompass Dr. Schubert’s non-infringement opinion for the representative
`products based on this improper claim construction, should be stricken. If Dr. Schubert’s late
`claim construction is not stricken, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to order supplemental
`claim construction briefing so the Court can construe the term on an appropriate record.
`
`IV.
`
`DR. SCHUBERT’S OPINIONS THAT IMPROPERLY RELY ON PREVIOUSLY
`UNDISCLOSED AND INCONSISTENT WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING
`TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS SHOULD BE
`STRICKEN.
`A.
`Dr. Schubert Relied on Statements from TMC Employee Ms. Yinghua Mo to
`Present Technical Information.
`With respect to the representative nature of products identified in Plaintiffs’ infringement
`contentions and analyzed by Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Aris Silzars, Dr. Schubert relied on a statement
`of TMC’s “corporate representative, Ms. Yinghua Mo,” to assert that TMC’s products “do not
`have a modular design” for purposes of infringement:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 8410666
`
`-8-
`
`Page 12
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 8760
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 75, 255, 264.
`Dr. Schubert also relied solely on a conversation with Ms. Mo to confirm that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ms. Mo’s Statements are Unreliable and Inconsistent with Prior Testimony
`and the Record.
`As an initial matter, Ms. Mo’s statements, purportedly providing new information
`regarding technical aspects of the Accused Products, are unreliable because they are inconsistent
`with her prior sworn testimony as a corporate representative of TMC. For example:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` To the extent that she now suggests that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 8410666
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Page 13
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 8761
`
`
`additional information is available regarding the technical aspects of the Accused Products, this is
`inconsistent and unreliable. Specifically with respect to the representative nature of Plaintiffs’
`Representative Products, Ms. Mo testified:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` To the extent Ms. Mo
`provided additional information regarding Plaintiffs’ representative products analysis not based on
`documents already produced, this is inconsistent with her prior testimony and unreliable.
`Therefore, because Ms. Mo’s statements are unreliable and inconsistent with prior sworn
`testimony on TMC’s behalf, Dr. Schubert’s opinions relying on these statements should be
`stricken.
`
`C.
`
`Ms. Mo’s New Statements Regarding Technical Information Disclose
`Information That Was Not Previously Disclosed by TMC in Response to
`Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories.
`The information that Ms. Mo allegedly provided to Dr. Shubert
`
`
`was sought by
`
`Plaintiffs in interrogatories propounded on April 14, 2021. See Ex. 5 at 1.
`Interrogatory No. 3 requested TMC to:
`
`Describe all substantive differences, if any, relating to the alleged
`infringement between the Accused Products. The description should
`include a description of how each product differs, if at all, for
`purposes of infringement.”
`
`Id. at 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 8410666
`
`-10-
`
`Page 14
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 8762
`
`
`Similarly, Interrogatory No. 4 requested that,
`
`
`
`If You contend that the Representative Products identified in the
`Infringement Contentions are not representative of how the
`additional Accused Products identified in Appendices 2 through 5
`of Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions infringe the Asserted
`Patents, describe all substantive differences relevant to the alleged
`infringement of each asserted claim of the Asserted Patents between
`each Accused Product and the Representative Product(s). The
`description should include a description of how each Accused
`Product differs for purposes of the alleged infringement.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ms. Mo has now provided additional technical information to TMC’s experts that was not
`disclosed in TMC’s threadbare interrogatory responses, and apparently finds basis somewhere
`other than the documents that TMC has produced. Such information was directly sought by
`Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4, yet TMC never supplemented its responses to include this new
`information, as it is required to do under Rule 26(e)(1). Because TMC failed to provide this
`information, it “is not allowed to use that information . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a
`
`US 8410666
`
`-11-
`
`Page 15
`
`JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - EX. 2014
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. JAPAN DISPLAY INC. - IPR2021-01058
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 197 Filed 11/10/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 8763
`
`
`hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`37(c).
`TMC has provided no justification for its failure to produce this information. Further, this
`technical information is critical to the case—not only does TMC now attempt to rely on it, but it
`is the very same technical information that Plaintiffs have been requesting since the beginning of
`discovery. TMC’s withholding of this information until rebuttal reports clearly prejudiced
`Plaintiffs’ ability to evaluate their infringement contentions, claim construction proposals, and
`other case theories with the benefit of this information. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ experts were unable
`to rely on such technical information in their opening reports. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully
`request that Dr. Schubert’s opinions relying on the statements of Ms. Mo, embodied in paragraphs
`75, 255, and 264 and Footnote 8 of Exhibit 1, be stricken and that Dr. Schubert not be allowed to
`testify regarding those opinions. See GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-C