`
`
`September 15, 2021
`
`
`VIA E-File
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`United States District Judge
`J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
`844 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3555
`
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.
`C.A. No. 13-cv-1835-RGA
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s request, the parties submit the following proposals for the
`remaining liability jury trials for the Family 4 and Family 6 patents.
`
`All outstanding motions (summary judgment, Daubert, and motions to strike) regarding
`the Family 4 and Family 6 patents have been resolved by the Court.
`
`The parties and their witnesses are available for a jury trial or trials during one or more of
`the weeks beginning on the following dates: March 7, 2022 and March 14, 2022. The parties
`can provide additional dates to the extent the Court has other conflicting trials or commitments
`scheduled in this timeframe.
`
`TQ Delta’s Position: TQ Delta proposes that the Court hold a combined liability trial
`for the Family 4 and Family 6 patents. The Court entered summary judgment in TQ Delta’s
`favor for the single Family 6 patent on (1) the issue of infringement and (2) several 35 U.S.C. §
`112 defenses, thereby eliminating the need to try these issues to a jury. The Court found that
`triable issues remain for a jury on infringement and validity issues for Family 4 and certain
`validity issues for Family 6. Given the summary resolution of the issue of infringement and the
`substantial narrowing of invalidity defenses for Family 6, TQ Delta believes that a single week
`would be sufficient time for a combined trial. There will be additional efficiencies given that
`both patent families name the same single inventor, Mr. Marcos Tzannes, and TQ Delta’s expert
`witness, Dr. Vijay Madisetti, is TQ Delta’s primary expert for Family 4 and the only remaining
`expert for Family 6.
`
`Alternatively, to the extent the Court does not want to hold a combined Family 4 and
`Family 6 trial, TQ Delta would propose any two of the aforementioned weeks (preferably
`consecutive weeks) to complete these trials.
`
`2Wire’s request that the Court delay any further trials against it until certain trials in the
`ADTRAN case have been completed. 2Wire’s argument about “bellweather” trials, suggest that
`there would be some efficiency gained by having ADTRAN go first. On the contrary, 2Wire has
`already lost all issues tried to a jury for two other patent families and, yet, its strategy appears to
`remain litigating each and every claim and defense to final judgment. 2Wire (and the other
`defendants) refused the efficiency of joining trials against multiple defendants so it should not be
`
`9 1 9 N . M A R K E T S T R E E T , 1 2 T H F L O O R , W I L M I N G T O N , D E 1 9 8 0 1
`P H O N E : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 0 · F A X : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 1 · W W W . F A R N A N L A W . C O M
`
`
`
`CommScope, Inc.
`IPR2023-00066, Ex. 1030
`Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01835-RGA Document 1591 Filed 09/15/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 102469
`
`allowed to use the existence the related case against ADTRAN as an excuse to delay trials that
`are ready to be tried. The Family 4 trail against ADTRAN is not ready, and it is uncertain when
`it will be given a pending claim construction issue and possible further related motion practice.
`Family 4 and Family 6 should proceed against 2Wire. Further delay of any of these two
`remaining liability trials against 2Wire will necessarily delay a damages trial and final resolution
`of this civil action against 2Wire.
`
`2Wire’s Position: Initially, 2Wire believes that the Family 4 and Family 6 trials against
`ADTRAN should proceed first. The Court previously assigned different defendants to do the
`first bellwether trial for each of the TQ Delta patent families. At this point, 2Wire has already
`been to trial twice, for the Family 2 and Family 3 patent families. ADTRAN, on the other hand,
`still has not participated in a single jury trial in this case. It should be required to do so before
`2Wire is required to incur the costs of participating in yet another trial. At the very least, the
`Family 6 trial against ADTRAN should proceed first, given that 2Wire and ADTRAN are
`identically situated with only invalidity issues remaining for the Family 6 liability trial. TQ
`Delta opposes having ADTRAN proceed first based on its expressed desire to rush to a final
`resolution against 2Wire. TQ Delta, however, oversimplifies what remains to be litigated in this
`case. For example, there is a substantial amount of damages expert discovery to be done,
`including redoing expert reports and Daubert motions for Family 2 and Family 3, as well as
`doing completely new rounds of damages expert reports and motions for Family 4 and Family 6
`(if necessary). 2Wire also has a breach-of-contract counterclaim and a number of affirmative
`defenses, including implied waiver, that must be litigated before there can be any final judgment.
`
`To the extent the Court intends to schedule trials for 2Wire now, the Court should hold
`separate jury trials for the Family 4 and Family 6 patents. The technology at issue in the two
`families of patents is not only complex and but also very different, which is precisely why the
`Court divided TQ Delta’s patent families into separate trials in the first instance. Asking a jury
`in a week-long trial to understand multicarrier modulation and computing and combining phase
`shifts as claimed in the Family 4 patents is difficult enough; indeed, TQ Delta requires three
`separate experts just to put on its infringement case for Family 4. Adding in the invalidity case
`for Family 6, which separately covers switching of FEC settings based on a flag signal and has
`nothing to do with phase shifts, would make it extraordinarily difficult for the jury to understand
`all of the technology at issue and render a proper verdict during a single one-week trial.
`
`TQ Delta’s assertion that there would be added efficiencies in a combined trial ignores
`the different technology in the two cases. For example, although Marcos Tzannes is the same
`inventor, he would have to provide testimony on completely different technologies; there would
`be no real overlap in his testimony for Family 4 and Family 6. Furthermore, 2Wire has different
`technical experts in the two cases—Dr. Len Cimini for Family 4 and Dr. Krista Jacobsen for
`Family 6. This would add further complexity to a combined trial. Accordingly, the Court should
`keep the Family 4 and Family 6 trials separate.
`
`If the Court would like to discuss this matter for further clarification, the parties are
`available for a teleconference at the Court’s convenience.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`CommScope, Inc.
`IPR2023-00066, Ex. 1030
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01835-RGA Document 1591 Filed 09/15/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 102470
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (Via (E-File)
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`
`Michael J. Farnan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`CommScope, Inc.
`IPR2023-00066, Ex. 1030
`Page 3 of 3
`
`