J)
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`CERTAIN MEMORY DEVICES WITH
`INCREASED CAPACITANCE AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`~
`Investigation No. 337-TA-3::l.J.
`--u
`:::0
`N
`-..J
`
`L')C)
`_
`-·•11
`",---·-,
`
`J:::=
`\Q
`N
`0
`
`ORDER NO. 19
`
`On April 21, 1995, respondents Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and
`
`Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. filed a motion regarding subscription of
`
`Dr. John Caywood to the amended protective order (Motion No. 371-22). The
`
`motion is opposed by complainants.
`
`Dr. Caywood is still working in areas closely related to Mr. Hazani's
`
`current research. For that reason, Dr. Caywood should not have access to
`
`confidential business information under the protective order.
`
`There may be some misunderstanding as to what information should be
`
`protected under the protective order.
`
`In discovery, before the hearing
`
`begins, I usually allow the parties to designate almost anything as
`
`confidential business information because it is simpler to do this and it
`
`speeds up discovery. This assumes that all of the experts are under the
`
`protective order and can see all of the information. When there is a dispute
`
`about whether an expert can be present at the deposition of· a witness of an
`
`opposing party, however, the question of what is really confidential business
`
`information can be raised.
`
`Without getting access to all the confidential business information of
`
`complainants and the other parties under the protective order, Dr. Caywood
`
`generally would be able to hear testimony and to see documents relating to the
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`

`

`_,,,.
`
`validity and enforceability of the '904 patent. He also should be able to
`
`hear testimony and see documents relating to the Mitsubishi infringement
`
`issues, because he is Mitsubishi's expert witness. He would not be able to
`
`hear testimony or see documents relating to Mr. Hazani's current research or
`
`any research done by Mr. Hazani after about a year after the '904 patent was
`
`issued. Documents published within a year or so after the patent was issued
`
`could be relevant to what one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention would have known. He would not have access to information
`
`relating only to the domestic industry.
`
`This has been a consistent ruling in my cases on this issue.
`
`If Dr.
`
`Caywood were the only expert witness available in this technology, and both
`
`sides needed his expertise, a different ruling might be warranted.
`
`The key to getting under the protective order usually is not whether you
`
`are an expert in the technology but whether you will learn something under the
`
`protective order that you cannot forget, and that you may use to your benefit
`
`in the future, regardless of whether you intend to use it. Some information
`
`that an expert learns simply cannot be forgotten. This information may be
`
`used by the expert in his own work inadvertently, simply because he is aware
`
`of certain facts that he otherwise would not have known, and even though he
`
`does not intend to violate the protective order.
`
`If an expert witness is willing, for example, to state that he has
`
`retired, and that he agrees not to work in this area ever again, or for the
`
`next 10 years, or something like that, then he might get access to
`
`confidential information under the protective order.
`
`Or, if a district court hearing a parallel case puts this witness under
`
`that court's protective order, then the expert witness could get under the
`
`protective order here because he already had access to the same information.
`
`Dr. Caywood should be able to testify on the validity and enforceability
`
`issues and on any issues relating to Mitsubishi's infringement of the '904
`
`patent. He should not have access to current research of complainants or the
`
`2
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`

`

`..,.
`
`other respondents (unless they agree to give him access to it), or to the
`
`evidence relating to the domestic industry if it is confidential business
`
`information.
`
`Motion No. 371-22 is denied.
`
`Janet D. Saxon
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Issued: April 27, 1995
`
`3
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`

`

`CERTAIN MEMORY DEVICES WITH INCREASED
`CAPACITANCE AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-371
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Donna R. Koehnke, hereby certify that the attached Order was served by hand
`upon John M. Whealan, Esq., and upon the following parties via first class
`mail, and air mail where necessary, on_ April 27, 1995.
`
`Donna R. Koehnke, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C.
`20436
`
`For Complainants Emanuel Hazani and Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc.:
`
`James R. Myers, Esq.
`Gary M. Hnath, Esq.
`Royal W. Craig, Esq.
`John Bettino, Esq.
`VENABLE, BAETJER, HOWARD &
`CIVILETTI
`1201 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20005
`
`For Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
`America Inc. and Samsung Semiconductors, Inc.:
`
`Cecilia H. Gonzalez, Esq.
`Robert F. Ruyak, Esq.
`Thomas J. Scott, Esq.
`HOWREY & SIMON
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.
`20004
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`

`

`CERTAIN MEMORY DEVICES WITH INCREASED
`CAPACITANCE AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-371
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - p. 2
`
`For Respondents OKI Electric Industry Co., Ltd. and OKI America, Inc.:
`
`Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
`Jared B. Bobrow, Esq.
`Ann E. Dibble, Esq.
`Laura Handley, Esq.
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
`Silicon Valley Office
`2882 Sand Hill Road
`Suite 280
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`M. Jean Anderson, Esq.
`David W. Oliver, Esq.
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
`1615 L Street, N.W.
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20036
`
`For Respondents NEC CORPORATION AND NEC ELECTRONICS, INC.:
`
`J. Frank Osha, Esq.
`Darryl Mexic, Esq.
`Howard L. Bernstein, Esq.
`Alan J. Kasper, Esq.
`Scott M. Daniels, Esq.
`SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.
`20037
`
`Italo H. Ablondi, Esq.
`David Foster, Esq.
`ABLONDI, FOSTER, SOBIN & DAVIDOW
`1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 500
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20036
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`

`

`CERTAIN MEMORY DEVICES WITH INCREASED
`CAPACITANCE AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-371
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - p. 3
`
`For Respondent HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND
`HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES. CO., LTD,:
`
`Louis S. Mastriani, Esq.
`Tom M. Schaumberg, Esq.
`Larry L. Shatzer, II, Esq.
`Peter B. Martine, Esq.
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI, SCHAUMBERG & SCHILL
`1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 250
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20036
`
`Kenneth L. Nissly, Esq.
`Susan G. Van Keulen, Esq.
`THELEN, MARRIN, JOHNSON & BRIDGES
`Seventeenth Floor
`333 West San Carlos Street
`San Jose, California 95110-2701
`
`Frederick G. Michaud, Jr., Esq.
`George A. Hovanec, Jr., Esq.
`BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS
`George Mason Building
`Washington & Prince Streets
`P.O. Box 1404
`Alexandria, Virginia 22213-1404
`
`For Respondents Hitachi America, Ltd. and Hitachi, Ltd.:
`
`Carl W. Schwarz, Esq.
`Seth D. Greenstein, Esq.
`Douglas W. McNitt, Esq.
`McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
`1850 K Street, N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, D.C.
`20006
`
`John C. Altmiller, Esq.
`Frank Pietrantonio, Esq.
`Lynne Darcy, Esq.
`KENYON & KENYON
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 600
`Washington, D.C.
`
`20036
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`

`

`CERTAIN MEMORY DEVICES WITH INCREASED
`CAPACITANCE AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-371
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - p. 4
`
`For Respondents Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and
`Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc.:
`
`Thomas P. Ondeck. Esq.
`Kevin M. O'Brien, Esq.
`Ruffin B. Cordell, Esq.
`BAKER & MCKENZIE
`815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC
`20006-4078
`
`Robert M. Taylor, Jr., Esq.
`David B. Murphy, Esq.
`LYON & LYON
`3200 Park Center Drive
`Suite 1370
`Costa Mesa, CA
`
`92626
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`

`

`CERTAIN MEMORY DEVICES WITH INCREASED
`CAPACITANCE AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-371
`
`PUBLIC MAILING LIST
`
`Donna S. Wirt
`LEXIS-NEXIS
`1150 Eighteenth St., N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C.
`20036
`
`Denise Becker
`West Services, Inc.
`901 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 200
`Washington, D.C.
`20005
`
`(PARTIES NEED NOT SERVE COPIES ON LEXIS OR WEST PUBLISHING)
`
`MASIMO 2089
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2022-01300
`
`