`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`NO. 2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`SUPPLEMENT EXPERT REPORTS TO INCLUDE THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 208 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 10175
`
`
`CyWee’s reply fails to explain its lack of diligence in supplementing its infringement
`
`theories, fails to acknowledge the substantial prejudice that would be imposed on Samsung if
`
`leave were allowed, and ultimately fails to demonstrate good cause for this supplementation.
`
`is also no dispute that CyWee was required to supplement its infringement contentions by late
`
`August. CyWee has not provided sufficient justification for why it did not do so.
`
`Instead, CyWee’s reply relies on mischaracterizations to distract from and attempt to
`
` There
`
`excuse its unjustified delays.
`
`
`
`
`
` Moreover, CyWee’s belated
`
`attempt to inject an entirely new theory of infringement at this late stage of the case would
`
`impose substantial prejudice on Samsung. As CyWee has not established good cause for this
`
`supplementation, its motion for leave should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`SAMSUNG HAS NEVER BEEN IN A BETTER POSITION THAN CYWEE TO
`OBTAIN
` SOURCE CODE
`
`CyWee argues that Samsung was in a better position than CyWee to obtain
`
`source code. That is incorrect.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CyWee’s argument is further misleading. Regardless of which party was arguably in a
`
`better position to obtain
`
` source code in the first place, CyWee received access to
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 208 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 10176
`
`
` CyWee has still not (and cannot) adequately explain why it did not supplement
`
`its infringement contentions by late August as the Court’s schedule required. CyWee places the
`
`blame on Samsung, but any blame rests squarely on CyWee.
`
`II.
`
`CYWEE DID NOT REVIEW
`
` SOURCE CODE UNTIL OCTOBER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CyWee simply failed to approach the source code discovery process with diligence.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 208 Filed 10/16/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 10177
`
`
`CyWee attempts to shift the blame for its own inaction.
`
`
`
`
`
`. Again, this argument is both incorrect and misleading. As set forth in Samsung’s
`
`Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 187), Samsung’s “representative products” proposal to CyWee was a
`
`compromise solution to the problem of CyWee’s unreasonable demand for indexed, extracted
`
`versions of the whole phone source code for every accused product, which would have required
`
`Samsung to decompress and index thousands of files plainly irrelevant to the subject matter of
`
`the litigation. As a compromise, Samsung offered to extract and index the whole phone source
`
`code for certain representative products instead.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CYWEE CANNOT REMEDY THE SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO SAMSUNG
`
`CyWee cannot reasonably dispute the substantial prejudice to Samsung if the proposed
`
`supplementation were allowed. CyWee’s reply argues that Samsung is not prejudiced because it
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 208 Filed 10/16/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 10178
`
`
`allegedly has “always enjoyed access to
`
` code.” As Samsung has explained multiple
`
`times, however, that claim is demonstrably incorrect.
`
`It is also misleading. Indeed, CyWee does not dispute that its proposed supplementation
`
`would assert a fundamentally different theory of infringement than set forth in its original claim
`
`charts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, CyWee cannot provide any solution for the significant time that Samsung has
`
`already lost developing its non-infringement positions based on CyWee’s original infringement
`
`theory. Samsung still has not seen the new infringement theory that CyWee would advance if the
`
`proposed supplementation is allowed. CyWee does not explain why it should, as the result of its
`
`inexcusable delay, have the significant benefit of Samsung’s already-served invalidity report to
`
`use to fine tune CyWee’s infringement allegations, while Samsung is left guessing at the precise
`
`contours of CyWee’s new theory.
`
`A fourth extension in this case (however short) is not warranted and would not remedy
`
`the substantial prejudice that would be imposed on Samsung.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`CyWee’s reply fails to adequately explain its lack of diligence.
`
`
`
`, yet CyWee declined to perform an
`
`adequate review of that code until October. CyWee likewise cannot provide a solution to remedy
`
`the substantial prejudice its inexcusable delay would impose on Samsung. Accordingly, CyWee
`
`has failed to demonstrate the requisite good cause and its Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 208 Filed 10/16/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 10179
`
`
`DATED: October 12, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`
`Barry Sher (pro hac vice)
`NY Bar No. 2325777
`barrysher@paulhastings.com
`Zachary Zwillinger (pro hac vice)
`NY Bar No. 5071154
`zacharyzwillinger@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 222873
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`Bob Chen (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 273098
`bobchen@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`TX Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 208 Filed 10/16/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 10180
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on October 12, 2018. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) and by email.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that under Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), the foregoing document is filed under
`
`
`
`seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order entered in this matter.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`