throbber
Case 1:13-cv-01835-RGA Document 1591 Filed 09/15/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 102468
`

`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket