throbber
Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 6800
`
` 1
`
` 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` 2 MARSHALL DIVISION
`
` 3 BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC )
` Plaintiff )
` 4 )
` vs. ) NO. 2:15-CV-1274-JRG-RSP
` 5 ) LEAD CASE
` HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD, ET )
` 6 AL )
` Defendants )
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
` 10 PLAINTIFF BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE
` TOYOTA DEFENDANTS TO PROVIDE RELEVANT DISCOVERY
` 11
`
` 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROY S. PAYNE
`
` 13 SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21 COURT REPORTER: Ms. Tammy L. Goolsby
` Tammylgoolsby@sbcglobal.net
` 22
` Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was
` 23 produced by a Computer
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 6801
`
` 2
`
` 1 APPEARANCES
`
` 2 FOR PLAINTIFF BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC.:
`
` 3 MR. PETER LAMBRIANAKOS
` BROWN RUDNICK - NEW YORK
` 4 Seven Times Square, 47th Floor
` New York, New York 10036
` 5 212-209-4813
` Fax: 212-209-4801
` 6 Email: Plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
` 7 MR. SAMUEL FRANKLIN BAXTER
` MCKOOL SMITH - MARSHALL
` 8 104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
` Marshall, Texas 75670
` 9 903-923-9000
` Fax: 903-923-9099
` 10 Email: Sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`
` 11
`
` 12 FOR DEFENDANT TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION:
`
` 13 MR. J. THAD HEARTFIELD
` THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
` 14 2195 Dowlen Road
` Beaumont, Texas 77706
` 15 409-866-33181
` Fax: 409-866-5789
` 16 Email: Thad@heartfieldlawfirm.com
`
` 17 MR. WILLIAM H. MANDIR
` SUGHRUE MION
` 18 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800
` Washington, DC 20037
` 19 202-293-7060
` Fax: 202-293-7860
` 20 Email: Wmandir@sughrue.com
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 6802
`
` 3
`
` 1 INDEX
`
` 2 PAGE
`
` 3 Appearances 2
`
` 4 Index 3
`
` 5 Proceedings 4
`
` 6 Plaintiff's Argument by Mr. Lambrianakos 4
`
` 7 Defendants' Argument by Mr. Mandir 14
`
` 8 Reporter's Certificate 23
`
` 9
`
` 10
`
` 11
`
` 12
`
` 13
`
` 14
`
` 15
`
` 16
`
` 17
`
` 18
`
` 19
`
` 20
`
` 21
`
` 22
`
` 23
`
` 24
`
` 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 6803
`
` 4
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 2
`
` 3 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Please be
`
` 4 seated.
`
` 5 For the record we're here for the motion
`
` 6 hearing in Blitzsafe Texas versus Honda Motor Company,
`
` 7 et al, and specifically Toyota, which is under
`
` 8 Consolidated Civil Action 2:15-1274.
`
` 9 Would counsel state their appearances for
`
` 10 the record?
`
` 11 MR. BAXTER: Sam Baxter, Peter
`
` 12 Lambrianakos, we're here. We're ready, Your Honor.
`
` 13 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Baxter.
`
` 14 MR. HEARTFIELD: Good afternoon. Thad
`
` 15 Heartfield and William Mandir for Toyota, we're ready.
`
` 16 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr.
`
` 17 Heartfield.
`
` 18 All right. This is Plaintiff's motion,
`
` 19 so I'll be happy to hear from Plaintiff first.
`
` 20 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Good afternoon, Your
`
` 21 Honor. Peter Lambrianakos of Brown Rudnick for the
`
` 22 Plaintiff.
`
` 23 We're asking the Court to compel
`
` 24 production of information regarding Toyota's USB box.
`
` 25 Specifically what we're requesting is an identification
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 6804
`
` 5
`
` 1 of those vehicles in which the USB box was installed and
`
` 2 the numbers of USB boxes which were actually installed
`
` 3 in those vehicles.
`
` 4 That's slightly different than what we
`
` 5 had put in our brief, but at this juncture in the case,
`
` 6 we believe that that is the minimal information that
`
` 7 we're going to need in order to be able to take the USB
`
` 8 box information into account in our expert reports.
`
` 9 To put this into context, Your Honor, the
`
` 10 USB box is very important to this case because we
`
` 11 believe it is infringing interface under the Court's
`
` 12 construction of interface for the 786 patent.
`
` 13 The Court's construction requires that
`
` 14 the interface be functionally and structurally separate
`
` 15 from the car radio, and that's what the USB box is.
`
` 16 It is a self-contained box that is
`
` 17 separate from the car radio which has connectors that
`
` 18 connect the interface the USB box to the car radio and
`
` 19 then permit that interface to also connect to a portable
`
` 20 device, so the portable device will be integrated with
`
` 21 the car radio, so the USB box is a very important aspect
`
` 22 of this case and it's a very important product.
`
` 23 Now, in our infringement contentions, we
`
` 24 identified all of the Toyota vehicles which we believe
`
` 25 had the -- the infringing functionality in this case
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 6805
`
` 6
`
` 1 under both patents.
`
` 2 And then we served interrogatory early in
`
` 3 the case which requested that Toyota provide product
`
` 4 information regarding those aspects, those components
`
` 5 and products which put -- which provide the infringing
`
` 6 functionality into those vehicles.
`
` 7 Now, Toyota responded with a lengthy list
`
` 8 of parts of actual head units and other components which
`
` 9 provide the accused functionality in the vehicles which
`
` 10 were identified in our infringement contentions, but
`
` 11 this USB box was not on that list.
`
` 12 We had -- we treated that list as the
`
` 13 universe of head units and other components which were
`
` 14 accused in this case and which provided the accused
`
` 15 functionality all throughout the case.
`
` 16 Now, what happened then is --
`
` 17 THE COURT: Mr. Lambrianakos, just so
`
` 18 I'll understand, are you suggesting that you didn't
`
` 19 realize there was a USB box in these vehicles?
`
` 20 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: That's correct.
`
` 21 THE COURT: Tell me about that. Why --
`
` 22 what years are we talking about here?
`
` 23 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: It appears from
`
` 24 Toyota's deposition testimony that the USB box was
`
` 25 created to work with what's called a 2007 calendar year
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 6806
`
` 7
`
` 1 head units and may have been installed in cars through
`
` 2 the 2010 calendar year products, so we're talking about
`
` 3 roughly 2008 through 2011 in terms of model year.
`
` 4 THE COURT: And it's -- how is this box
`
` 5 different from just a USB port that people would be
`
` 6 familiar with in cars?
`
` 7 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: The USB port is the
`
` 8 property that a user would see in the car, in the
`
` 9 dashboard, in a location.
`
` 10 The USB box is a box that sits behind the
`
` 11 dashboard that has a wire coming out from it which
`
` 12 ultimately connects to the port and has another wire
`
` 13 coming out which connects to the rest of the car radio.
`
` 14 So that box is behind the dashboard and is not visible
`
` 15 to a user.
`
` 16 So when Blitzsafe was preparing its
`
` 17 infringement contentions, we obtained a Toyota head
`
` 18 unit, and we had that Toyota head unit taken apart and
`
` 19 photographed and shown as an exemplary head unit.
`
` 20 We also examined all the car manuals for
`
` 21 Toyota's products, and we identified all the Toyota and
`
` 22 Lexus products which provided USB functionality and also
`
` 23 Bluetooth functionality.
`
` 24 And we showed in our infringement charts
`
` 25 how all those cars had the same functionality, and we
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 6807
`
` 8
`
` 1 used the head unit that we had and all the -- and the
`
` 2 manuals that we had and we said that those were
`
` 3 exemplary of the functionality of all the cars.
`
` 4 And no doubt this USB box works exactly
`
` 5 the same way as the other head units. It allows a user
`
` 6 to use the buttons on the -- on the -- on the car radio
`
` 7 to control the device.
`
` 8 It obtains the audio from the device and
`
` 9 plays it over the speakers, and it also obtains
`
` 10 information about a song that's being played and allows
`
` 11 it to be displayed.
`
` 12 So it's indistinguishable in terms of its
`
` 13 functionality from anything else any of the other
`
` 14 products, anything that we had at the time.
`
` 15 So when we received Toyota's answers to
`
` 16 interrogatories, which listed everything from the 2007
`
` 17 calendar year devices all the way through to the time of
`
` 18 the answer, we believed that we had a comprehensive list
`
` 19 of the products that provide the functionality, and we
`
` 20 relied on that throughout discovery.
`
` 21 Now, during our review of the documents
`
` 22 in this case, there were about two and a half million
`
` 23 pages of documents that were produced, we did a find a
`
` 24 document, 49-page document that identified the USB box.
`
` 25 But this USB box did not have any of the
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 6808
`
` 9
`
` 1 part numbers in it that corresponded to what Toyota had
`
` 2 identified. There were also no other indications that
`
` 3 this box was -- was installed in vehicles that were
`
` 4 identified by us or by Toyota.
`
` 5 And so what we did was we brought the --
`
` 6 we brought the specification to a deposition to see
`
` 7 whether we could get information on whether this USB box
`
` 8 was, in fact, installed in any cars, notwithstanding the
`
` 9 fact that it wasn't identified in interrogatory answers.
`
` 10 And it did turn out in depositions,
`
` 11 specifically on September 1st of this year, that the USB
`
` 12 box is a component that was installed. The witness was
`
` 13 not able to identify specifically which head units it
`
` 14 was installed with, but he did say it was made to be
`
` 15 installed with at least the 2007 models, some of which
`
` 16 are identified in interrogatory answers.
`
` 17 He also stated that he believed that
`
` 18 there was a document in Toyota that would allow him to
`
` 19 determine specifically which models this USB box was
`
` 20 installed in. He said he didn't know one way or the
`
` 21 other whether that document was produced in discovery.
`
` 22 So we've looked for that document. We
`
` 23 can't find any such document. The only evidence that we
`
` 24 have about this USB box is the specification which we
`
` 25 found in the production and the -- and the testimony
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 6809
`
` 10
`
` 1 which we obtained on September 1st that indicates that
`
` 2 the USB box was, in fact, installed in cars that were
`
` 3 accused of infringement at the beginning of the case.
`
` 4 THE COURT: And are you representing that
`
` 5 the first notice your side had that the USB box at issue
`
` 6 was installed in cars during the relevant period was at
`
` 7 that September 1 deposition?
`
` 8 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
` 9 THE COURT: The document production that
`
` 10 you're talking about that included this 49-page document
`
` 11 about the USB box, that was what you received back in
`
` 12 February?
`
` 13 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: It may have been
`
` 14 February or March. It was very early. Yes, it was part
`
` 15 of that production.
`
` 16 THE COURT: And did you make any other
`
` 17 effort before the September 1 deposition to determine
`
` 18 whether or not that USB box was present in any of the --
`
` 19 any of the accused products?
`
` 20 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: The only other effort
`
` 21 we made was we did have that specification with us for
`
` 22 an earlier deposition that occurred in mid-August of
`
` 23 another witness that was designated on technical topics.
`
` 24 But when it became clear during the
`
` 25 deposition that the witness had no knowledge in this
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 6810
`
` 11
`
` 1 area, we didn't ask him about the USB box. We waited
`
` 2 until we had Mr. Hata on August 31 and September 1 in
`
` 3 order to determine whether the USB box was, in fact,
`
` 4 installed.
`
` 5 To be frank, Your Honor, when we read the
`
` 6 specification and we looked at the list of products that
`
` 7 was installed, we assumed that it must have been an
`
` 8 earlier product, and that's the reason why it wasn't on
`
` 9 the list.
`
` 10 And it's -- but we thought that it would
`
` 11 be helpful in a deposition to determine whether --
`
` 12 because it was a very good document in terms of
`
` 13 explaining functionality, we thought that it might be
`
` 14 useful to help the witness explain to us how the radios
`
` 15 functioned.
`
` 16 And I was actually quite surprised when
`
` 17 the witness said, oh, that there were certain radios on
`
` 18 their list of accused products which actually didn't
`
` 19 have USB functionality in them.
`
` 20 And then he revealed that those -- those
`
` 21 radios only work with the USB if the box is installed,
`
` 22 and that's when we realized, oh, this is actually a
`
` 23 product that was actually installed in these head units.
`
` 24 THE COURT: All right. And the
`
` 25 Defendants take the position that you did not accuse
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 6811
`
` 12
`
` 1 these boxes. What -- what is your response to that?
`
` 2 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Our response is that
`
` 3 what we did accuse were the automobiles that had the
`
` 4 infringing functionality, and so we accused, you know,
`
` 5 makes, models, and model years of automobiles that
`
` 6 included the infringing functionality.
`
` 7 And so they were aware that the very cars
`
` 8 that included the USB boxes were accused of infringement
`
` 9 because they had that functionality, and what would have
`
` 10 been responsive to our interrogatories would have been
`
` 11 an identification of all the components of those cars
`
` 12 that provide that functionality, that includes the USB
`
` 13 box, and yet the USB box was not identified in the case.
`
` 14 If I had -- we had not taken that
`
` 15 document and asked the witness about it, we would never
`
` 16 have known that the USB box was, in fact, an accused
`
` 17 product that provided the accused functionality in those
`
` 18 automobiles.
`
` 19 THE COURT: You made reference to a
`
` 20 document identified by the deponent during the
`
` 21 September 1 deposition. Tell me again what it is you
`
` 22 contend that document concerns.
`
` 23 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Okay. The document
`
` 24 that -- that we questioned the witness on is attached to
`
` 25 our motion as Exhibit 8.
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 6812
`
` 13
`
` 1 THE COURT: That's the 49 page?
`
` 2 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Yes.
`
` 3 THE COURT: I'm talking about a document
`
` 4 you said the witness said existed that you looked for in
`
` 5 your production and didn't find.
`
` 6 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: In his deposition on
`
` 7 page 139, which is part of Exhibit 6, I -- I -- the
`
` 8 question was, "Even without knowing a particular part
`
` 9 number, are you aware of a Toyota product that provides
`
` 10 USB conductivity when combined with this 07CY model head
`
` 11 units."
`
` 12 So there, Your Honor, I'm referring to a
`
` 13 07CY head unit identified in Toyota's interrogatory
`
` 14 answer.
`
` 15 His response was, "Toyota does have
`
` 16 documents that indicate which Toyota vehicles have a USB
`
` 17 box installed, but I don't know -- I don't know which
`
` 18 vehicles had USB boxes installed, but Toyota does have
`
` 19 such documents. I don't know whether or not those
`
` 20 documents have been produced." And that's on page 136,
`
` 21 lines 12 through 17 of Mr. Hata's deposition.
`
` 22 THE COURT: So your contention is that
`
` 23 would be responsive to the first category or first type
`
` 24 of information you said you needed?
`
` 25 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: That would at least
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 6813
`
` 14
`
` 1 identify the head units, so, yes, Your Honor, we would
`
` 2 additionally need to know how many units of USB boxes
`
` 3 were provided.
`
` 4 So between that document and the number
`
` 5 of units, that would be sufficient for us.
`
` 6 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr.
`
` 7 Lambrianakos. Let me hear from the Defendant. Then
`
` 8 I'll let you respond.
`
` 9 MR. MANDIR: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
` 10 William Mandir on behalf of the Toyota Defendants.
`
` 11 So as the Court identified, Toyota
`
` 12 produced documents back in February of 2016, and at that
`
` 13 time we produced all the documents that Toyota has
`
` 14 concerning this USB box product, including the
`
` 15 specification that you were just talking about.
`
` 16 They then served a set of
`
` 17 interrogatories, their first set of interrogatories, and
`
` 18 in interrogatory number one asked for the product
`
` 19 numbers of all accused products, and they defined
`
` 20 accused products in the interrogatory. Interrogatory
`
` 21 three asked for financial information about those
`
` 22 products such as cost and profit information.
`
` 23 In response, we filed our -- we served
`
` 24 our responses to those interrogatories on March 4. In
`
` 25 those interrogatories, we made objections, and we
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 6814
`
` 15
`
` 1 specifically objected that Toyota was not going to
`
` 2 provide information with respect to any products that
`
` 3 were not set forth in their infringement contentions
`
` 4 which they served back in November of 2015.
`
` 5 And if I can go back to that infringement
`
` 6 contentions, Blitzsafe's counsel mentioned that
`
` 7 Blitzsafe identified vehicles, and that's correct, and
`
` 8 they -- but the infringement contentions are more than
`
` 9 just vehicles. You have to chart what the infringement
`
` 10 is.
`
` 11 They did chart one exemplary product, had
`
` 12 nothing to do with the USB box at all. It has to do
`
` 13 with chips that are actually embedded in the car radio
`
` 14 itself. That's the infringement contention, so nothing
`
` 15 about the USB box.
`
` 16 We made this objection in our
`
` 17 interrogatory responses, and we made it very
`
` 18 specifically. We said we're not going to provide
`
` 19 information that's not in the infringement contentions.
`
` 20 We put that in the general objections,
`
` 21 and we also specifically made the same objection when we
`
` 22 responded to interrogatory one and three, so the -- the
`
` 23 responses have, you know, at least three instances that
`
` 24 same objection.
`
` 25 After we made that -- those responses and
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 6815
`
` 16
`
` 1 gave those objections, we didn't hear anything from
`
` 2 Blitzsafe. They didn't contact us to say what does this
`
` 3 objection mean, that they disagree with the objection.
`
` 4 We never heard from them until
`
` 5 September 16th, more than five months later, where
`
` 6 they -- we had a meet and confer and we discussed this
`
` 7 USB box.
`
` 8 And Blitzsafe counsel mentioned that you
`
` 9 didn't give us information about this USB box, and we
`
` 10 indicated, well, that's right, we made objections about
`
` 11 this, we haven't heard from anything from you about it.
`
` 12 This was Friday, September 16th. The
`
` 13 fact discovery cutoff was Monday, September 19th, so
`
` 14 then they filed this motion on the 19th.
`
` 15 We've since now gotten their expert
`
` 16 report which includes the USB box, even though they've
`
` 17 not moved under patent 03-6B to amend their infringement
`
` 18 contentions.
`
` 19 So it's our position, Your Honor, that
`
` 20 the USB box is not in the case. They still haven't
`
` 21 moved to amend their contentions, you know, which also
`
` 22 requires a showing of good cause, and it's our position
`
` 23 it shouldn't be in the case, and we intent to file a
`
` 24 motion to strike it from their expert's report.
`
` 25 THE COURT: Mr. Mandir, do you dispute
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 6816
`
` 17
`
` 1 their contention that they did not know about the
`
` 2 existence of such a USB box until the September 1st
`
` 3 deposition?
`
` 4 MR. MANDIR: I mean, I can only take them
`
` 5 at what they say. I don't understand it if that is what
`
` 6 happened because I guess I would expect to -- they would
`
` 7 have picked it up even before they filed the lawsuit.
`
` 8 But that being said, certainly by
`
` 9 February when -- we had produced it by February. I
`
` 10 mean, February to September, I mean, that's a lot of
`
` 11 months not to have any idea about this USB box or to
`
` 12 wait until September to start asking about it.
`
` 13 THE COURT: Other than the 49-page
`
` 14 document that Mr. Lambrianakos has talked about, is
`
` 15 there anything else in your document production that you
`
` 16 believe should have notified them about the presence of
`
` 17 this USB box?
`
` 18 MR. MANDIR: We don't, Your Honor. So
`
` 19 that -- just to give a little background, the USB box is
`
` 20 not a product that Toyota developed. It was something
`
` 21 we bought. It was developed, we understand, by
`
` 22 Panasonic. It's a legacy product that we purchased, so
`
` 23 it's not something we developed.
`
` 24 We had this technical specification and
`
` 25 some reference to it and some other documents and that's
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 6817
`
` 18
`
` 1 it. Everything that we had that is anything related to
`
` 2 the USB box was produced in February of 2016.
`
` 3 THE COURT: Well, I guess where I'm
`
` 4 leaning on this is that it sounds to me reasonable for
`
` 5 them not to have known about this box.
`
` 6 When I first read this, I was assuming we
`
` 7 were talking about something that's clearly visible in
`
` 8 the automobile, like the USB port, and I was not
`
` 9 prepared to understand how they could wait until the
`
` 10 close of discovery to accuse that.
`
` 11 But if this is something that is not
`
` 12 visible and is only in certain vehicles and they had no
`
` 13 notice of its existence in the accused vehicles until
`
` 14 that deposition on September 1st, then I -- I am more
`
` 15 understanding of why we're here.
`
` 16 You provided interrogatory answers that
`
` 17 listed out other components that you felt were accused
`
` 18 by their claims?
`
` 19 MR. MANDIR: That's correct, Your Honor.
`
` 20 900 parts actually.
`
` 21 THE COURT: And there was no mention of
`
` 22 this one?
`
` 23 MR. MANDIR: Not the USB box because we
`
` 24 specifically indicated that we were providing parts for
`
` 25 those that were in their initial disclosures and in
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 6818
`
` 19
`
` 1 their infringement contentions.
`
` 2 THE COURT: Well, I am remembering from
`
` 3 the claim construction hearing that as this box has been
`
` 4 described to me now, I can understand it to have a more
`
` 5 important role in this case.
`
` 6 I'm not offering any opinion about
`
` 7 whether or not it will carry the day, but it certainly
`
` 8 is relevant to the issues we're discussing, and I'm --
`
` 9 I'm satisfied that they've acted with reasonable
`
` 10 diligence.
`
` 11 I'm not at this point making any finding
`
` 12 about whether Toyota was in any way deficient in its
`
` 13 responses, but I'm satisfied that there isn't anything
`
` 14 that causes me to think they were not reasonably
`
` 15 diligent.
`
` 16 So talk to me about the burden involved
`
` 17 in responding to the two requests that -- that the
`
` 18 Plaintiff is now seeking.
`
` 19 MR. MANDIR: Well, if I understand it, I
`
` 20 think they want a listing of the products that the USB
`
` 21 was installed into, and I guess all -- is that -- I
`
` 22 think that's all that was mentioned.
`
` 23 THE COURT: That and the number of USB
`
` 24 boxes sold, is my understanding.
`
` 25 MR. MANDIR: Right. I mean, certainly we
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 198 Filed 10/24/16 Page 20 of 24 PageID #: 6819
`
` 20
`
` 1 can -- we can get that information if necessary. I
`
` 2 don't -- I'm not sure if -- if the question is how long
`
` 3 it would take us to get that, I'm not exactly sure; but
`
` 4 I would think, you know, within a couple of weeks for
`
` 5 sure, if not sooner.
`
` 6 THE COURT: All right. Well, then I'm
`
` 7 going to grant their request for that information.
`
` 8 As far as the length of time it -- what
`
` 9 is the next step, Mr. Lambrianakos, for which you need
`
` 10 that? What are you seeking in terms of time? Mr.
`
` 11 Mandir has mentioned two weeks or less.
`
` 12 MR. LAMBRIANAKOS: Your Honor, the
`
` 13 schedule is undergoing some negotiation for some slight
`
` 14 changes based on some things that have happened with the
`
` 15 experts in the case in terms of some scheduling issues.
`
` 16 But what we would need is if we had that
`
` 17 information in

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