Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 8594
`
`
`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 MR. RICHARD A. FLASCK
`
`US 8398701
`
` Page 1
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 8595
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`Legal Standards ................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Daubert Standard .................................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 2
`C.
`Failure to Provide Discovery .................................................................................. 3
`III. Mr. Flasck’s Improper and Untimely Claim Construction Opinions Should be
`Stricken. .............................................................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Mr. Flasck Provides Opinions That Constitute New and Untimely Claim
`Construction Argument. .......................................................................................... 4
`IV. Mr. Flasck’s Opinions That Improperly Rely on Previously Undisclosed and
`Inconsistent Witness Statements Regarding Technical Aspects of the Accused
`Products Should Be Stricken. ............................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Mr. Flasck Relied on Statements from TMC Employee Ms. Yinghua Mo to
`Present Technical Information. ............................................................................... 7
`Ms. Mo’s Statements are Unreliable and Inconsistent with Prior Testimony
`and the Record. ....................................................................................................... 8
`Ms. Mo’s New Statements Regarding Technical Information Disclose
`Information That Was Not Previously Disclosed by TMC in Response to
`Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. ..................................................................................... 10
`Mr. Flasck’s Opinions That Improperly Rely on Previously Undisclosed and
`Inconsistent Statements FROM TMC’S ATTORNEYS Regarding Technical
`Aspects of the Accused Products Should Be Stricken. ..................................................... 13
`A.
`Mr. Flasck Relied on Statements from TMC Employee TMC’s Attorneys to
`Present Technical Information. ............................................................................. 13
`TMC Statements Through Its Attorneys are Unreliable and Inconsistent
`with Other Expert Reports and the Record. .......................................................... 13
`TMC’s Attorneys’ New Statements Regarding Technical Information
`Disclose Information That Was Not Previously Disclosed by TMC in
`Response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories. ................................................................. 14
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`US 8398701
`
`-i-
`
` Page 2
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 8596
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`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
`Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C.,
`482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 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
`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) ................................................................................... 4
`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
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 2:19-CV-00071-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 4288323 (E.D. Tex. July 26, 2020) ................. 12, 15
`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
`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
`Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Grp. Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-586-JRG-RSP, 2019 WL 8110069 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2019) ........................ 3, 4
`
`US 8398701
`
`-ii-
`
` Page 3
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 8597
`
`
`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) .................................................................................................. 4
`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
`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, 13, 15
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) ................................................................................................................. 12
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) ................................................................................................................. 3, 12
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`US 8398701
`
`-iii-
`
` Page 4
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 8598
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Japan Display Inc. (“JDI”) and Panasonic Liquid Display Co., Ltd. (“PLD”)
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), move to exclude certain expert opinions of Mr. Richard E. Flasck 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, or its
`attorneys containing information not previously disclosed to Plaintiffs.
`On October 1, 2021, TMC served Mr. Flasck’s expert report on claimed invalidity of
`certain Asserted Patents. See Ex. 1. On October 15, 2021, TMC served Mr. Flasck’s rebuttal
`expert report regarding claimed non-infringement of certain Asserted Patents. See Ex. 2. In his
`reports, Mr. Flasck inappropriately assert opinions regarding how certain claims should be
`construed, which should be excluded as presenting new, untimely proposals for construction that
`were not addressed by the court’s Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (“Claim
`Construction Order,” Dkt. No. 123). Further, Mr. Flasck relies on statements regarding technical
`aspects of TMC’s products provided to him by TMC’s corporate representative, Ms. Yinghua Mo,
`and TMC’s attorneys, 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
`
`US 8398701
`
`-1-
`
` Page 5
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 8599
`
`
`limited to that of a gatekeeper,” ensuring that an expert’s testimony rests on a reliable foundation
`“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
`
`US 8398701
`
`-2-
`
` Page 6
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 8600
`
`
`on the eve of trial.” Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Grp. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-586-JRG-RSP, 2019
`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 8398701
`
`-3-
`
` Page 7
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8601
`
`
`III. MR. FLASCK’S IMPROPER AND UNTIMELY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`OPINIONS SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
`A.
`Mr. Flasck 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 *3.1 Here, Mr. Flasck goes beyond assessing the plain and ordinary meaning of
`claim terms, and instead asserts opinions that are essentially arguments for new constructions not
`addressed during the claim construction phase of this case.
`Circuit. For claim 1 of the ’409 patent, which requires, in part, “a first substrate . . .
`including . . . a peripheral circuit,” Mr. Flasck opines
`
`
`
`
`
` That is, Mr. Flasck construes the term “circuit”
` but this limitation is not supported by the claims or the
`specification.2 For example, the specification contemplates “wiring” (
`
`) as constituting the “peripheral circuit.” See Ex. 9 (’409 patent) at 6:22-25
`
`1 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).
`2 At deposition, Mr. Flasck
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 8 at
`
`233:2-10 (Deposition Tr. of Richard Flasck, Vol. 4, Oct. 29, 2021).
`
`US 8398701
`
`-4-
`
` Page 8
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 8602
`
`
`(“[T]he peripheral circuit 150 is configured to include an H scanner 152, a V scanner 154, a V
`system circuit 156, a circuit 158, a COM wiring 162, wirings 164, 166, and the like.”).
`Mr. Flasck acknowledges that his non-infringement analysis relies upon his construction
`of the term “circuit:”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 8 at 230:1-9.
`But TMC did not raise, and the court did not address in the Claim Construction Order, the
`term “circuit” in the ’409 patent. See Claim Construction Order,” Dkt. No. 123. TMC has been
`on notice of Plaintiff’s infringement theory for representative product TM070RDHP03 since at
`least January 6, 2021, when preliminary infringement contentions were served, which was well
`before the claim construction phase of this case. See Declaration of Erik Shallman (“Shallman
`Decl.”) at ¶ 15. Mr. Flasck’s construction of the term “circuit” is, therefore, untimely and
`improperly narrows the meaning of that term to avoid infringement. Therefore, Mr. Flasck’s
`opinion in paragraphs 57-61 in Exhibit 2, which encompass Mr. Flasck’s non-infringement opinion
`for TM070RDHP03 based on this improper claim construction, should be stricken. If Mr. Flasck’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.
`Common Layer. For claim 1 of the ’989 patent, which requires, in part, “wherein the
`counter electrode is connected to a common layer,” Mr. Flasck opines that
`
`
`
`
` These two
`
`US 8398701
`
`-5-
`
` Page 9
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 8603
`
`
`Vol. 3, Oct. 28, 2021) at 200:12-13 (“
`168:13-17 (
`169:2-4 (
`
`imports limitations from an embodiment
`. See id. ¶¶ 517-18. Further, Mr. Flasck concludes that
`
`
`additional limitations are not required by the claim language
`. See Ex. 7 (Deposition Tr. of Richard Flasck,
`),
`),
`
`
`). As Mr. Flasck admits, “
`.” Ex. 2 at ¶ 517. But Mr. Flasck improperly
`
`
`
`
` Id. at ¶ 526. Mr. Flasck’s legal conclusion is improper and wrong. During
`prosecution, the ’989 patent did not gain allowance based on the existence of the term “common
`layer.” In fact, the Examiner rejected the limitation disclosing the “common layer” over a prior
`art reference that disclosed a counter line. That is, the Examiner understood the “common layer”
`term to be broad enough to encompass a counter line. See Ex. 11 at 4 (’989 patent File History-
`rejecting claim 16, which would become part of claim 1 after claim 17 was rewritten in
`independent form).
`Mr. Flasck acknowledges that his non-infringement analysis relies upon his construction
`of the term “common layer.” See Ex. 7 at 160:16-19 (“
`
`). But TMC did not raise, and the court did not
`address in the Claim Construction Order, the term “common layer” in the ’989 patent. TMC has
`been on notice of Plaintiff’s infringement theory for the TL079DXP02 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 ¶ 14. Mr. Flasck’s construction of the term
`“common layer” is, therefore, untimely and improperly narrows the meaning of that term to avoid
`infringement. Therefore, Mr. Flasck’s opinion in paragraphs 512-26 in Exhibit 2, which
`
`US 8398701
`
`-6-
`
` Page 10
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 8604
`
`
`encompass Mr. Flasck’s non-infringement opinion for TL079QDXP02 based on this improper
`claim construction, should be stricken. If Mr. Flasck’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. MR. FLASCK’S OPINIONS THAT IMPROPERLY RELY ON PREVIOUSLY
`UNDISCLOSED AND INCONSISTENT WITNESS STATEMENTS REGARDING
`TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS SHOULD BE
`STRICKEN.
`A.
`Mr. Flasck 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, Mr. Flasck 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 169, 358, 507, 541.
`Mr. Flasck also relied on a conversation with Ms. Mo regarding
`
`
`
`US 8398701
`
`-7-
`
` Page 11
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 8605
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`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:
`
`
`
`
`
`US 8398701
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 12
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 8606
`
`
`
` To the extent Ms. Mo
`provided additional information regarding Plaintiffs’ representative products analysis not based on
`documents already produced, this is inconsistent and unreliable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US 8398701
`
`-9-
`
` Page 13
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 8607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Further, Mr. Flasck’s entire Exhibit 46 is unreliable for the same reasons
`because TM062JDSC03 is included in that list of products. See Ex. 2 at 37 of Exhibit 46.
`
`Dkt. No. 1 at 23 (-285 Case), Annotated in Blue
`Therefore, because Ms. Mo’s statements are unreliable and inconsistent with prior sworn
`testimony on TMC’s behalf and Plaintiffs evidence for the accused products, Mr. Flasck’s opinions
`in paragraphs 268-273 and Exhibit 46 of his rebuttal report that rely 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.
`
`US 8398701
`
`-10-
`
` Page 14
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 8608
`
`
`The information that Ms. Mo allegedly provided to Mr. Flasck—
`
`
`—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.
`
`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.
`
`US 8398701
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page 15
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 8609
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`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 Mr. Flasck’s opinions relying on the statements of Ms. Mo, embodied in paragraphs
`169, 269-273, 358, 507, and 541 of Exhibit 2, be stricken and that Mr. Flasck not be allowed to
`testify regarding those opinions. See GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-CV-00071-JRG-RSP,
`2020 WL 4288323, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 26, 2020) (striking from expert reports information that
`was not disclosed during fact discovery, was important because it was relied on by multiple experts
`and was requested through interrogatories and depositions, and was only disclosed in rebuttal
`expert reports such that plaintiffs’ experts did not have an opportunity to opine on the information).
`See also Versata Software Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-153 CE, 2011 WL 13136604, at *5
`
`US 8398701
`
`-12-
`
` Page 16
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 8610
`
`
`(E.D. Tex. May 5, 2011) (granting motion to strike regarding information that was omitted from
`discovery, concluding it was inconsistent to “claim that this type of information was either not
`accessible, unreliable, or not systematically tracked, and then turn around and provide this type of
`information to its expert without providing it to [plaintiff]”).
`Should the Court determine that Mr. Flasck may rely on Ms. Mo’s statements, Plaintiffs
`would alternatively request that Ms. Mo be presented for an additional deposition to testify on
`TMC’s behalf regarding (1) the technical operation of the Accused Products, (2) TMC’s
`contentions regarding the representative nature of Plaintiffs’ Representative Products, and (3) the
`technical differences between the Accused Products; so that Plaintiffs may cross examine TMC
`regarding these contentions.
`
`V.
`
`MR. FLASCK’S OPINIONS THAT IMPROPERLY RELY ON PREVIOUSLY
`UNDISCLOSED AND
`INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS FROM TMC’S
`ATTORNEYS REGARDING TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ACCUSED
`PRODUCTS SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
`A.
`Mr. Flasck Relied on Statements from TMC Employee TMC’s Attorneys to
`Present Technical Information.
`Mr. Flasck relied on information from TMC
`
`
` that TMC’s products
`anticipate the asserted claims in the ’288 and ’698 patents. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 1019, 1172. Mr. Flasck
`states that
`
`
`
` This information, like the
`statements from Ms. Mo, were not supported by any documentary evidence, yet formed the basis
`for Mr. Flasck entire opinion on the
` claim element.
`
`B.
`
`TMC Statements Through Its Attorneys are Unreliable and Inconsistent with
`Other Expert Reports and the Record.
`
`
`
`
`US 8398701
`
`-13-
`
` Page 17
`
`JDI/PLD - EX. 2013
`TIANMA MICROELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v JDI/PLD - IPR2021-01060
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00283-JRG Document 196 Filed 11/10/21 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 8611
`
`
`
`
`
` TMC was apparently
` for one TMC product used for invalidity,
`able to provide information
`but not for other TMC products accused of infringement, a blatant inconsistency. Moreover, on
`September 13, 2021, the day fact discovery was originally set to close, TMC produced a document
`showing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`C.
`
`TMC’s Attorneys’ New Statements Regarding Technical Information Disclose
`Information That Was Not Previously Disclosed by TMC in Response to
`Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories.
`Similar to the information allegedly provided by Ms. Mo, the technical details that TMC’s
`attorneys allegedly provided to Mr. Flasck
`was sought by Plaintiffs in interrogatories propounded on April 14, 2021. See Ex. 5 at 1
`(Interrogatories No. 3 and 4 reproduced above). As explained in Part IV.C supra, TMC’s response
`to this interrogatory
`
`
` Id. at 7. Because TMC failed to provide this information, it “is not allowed to use
`that information . . . 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). And TMC has provided no
`justification for its failure to produce th