Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 12445
`
`
`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 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF CYWEE
`GROUP, LTD.’S INDUCED INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 12446
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`CyWee’s Complaint and the First Amended Complaint ....................................... 1
`B.
`CyWee’s Original and Supplemental Infringement Contentions .......................... 2
`C.
`Expert Reports of Dr. Brown and Dr. LaViola ...................................................... 2
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Disclosures Required in a Party’s Infringement Contentions ................................ 4
`B.
`Amendment of a Party’s Infringement Contentions .............................................. 4
`C.
`Duty to Supplement Discovery Responses ............................................................ 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`CyWee’s Infringement Contentions Do Not Fairly Disclose Its Induced
`Infringement Theory and CyWee Has Not (and Refuses to) Amend Its
`Infringement Contentions to Disclose That Theory ............................................... 6
`CyWee Cannot Show Good Cause for Its Failure to Timely Disclose Its
`Induced Infringement Theory ................................................................................ 7
`The Potential Prejudice to Samsung Is Substantial .............................................. 10
`C.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 12
`
`B.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 12447
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 538 (E.D. Tex. 2015) .........................................................................................5
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:10-CV-379 LED-JDL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196820 (E.D. Tex. Aug.
`23, 2012) ............................................................................................................................4, 6, 8
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00437-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 9538515 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017) ........................6
`
`Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) .....................5, 6, 7, 11
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp.,
`No. 9:06-cv-151, 2009 WL 5842062 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) ..............................................5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Local Patent Rule 3-1 .......................................................................................................................4
`
`Local Patent Rule 3-6 .......................................................................................................................4
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 12448
`
`
`
`
`CyWee’s expert reports, served on October 8, 2018, rely on a previously undisclosed
`
`theory based on previously undisclosed evidence to allege for the first time that Samsung
`
`induced infringement of the patents-in-suit. CyWee’s Complaint and First Amended Complaint
`
`each contain a conclusory allegation of induced infringement, but do not detail any factual basis
`
`for that allegation. Likewise, neither CyWee’s original infringement contentions nor any of its
`
`subsequent supplemental infringement contentions even mention induced infringement, let alone
`
`allege any facts in support of CyWee’s induced infringement theory. Thus, CyWee failed to
`
`timely disclose the basis for its induced infringement claims.
`
`
`
`CyWee’s delay in disclosing the basis for its induced infringement allegations and late
`
`production of allegedly relevant evidence have substantially and unfairly prejudiced Samsung.
`
`Not only was Samsung left with an unreasonably short amount of time to analyze third party
`
`source code and conduct testing of third party software applications cited for the first time in
`
`CyWee’s expert reports, Samsung did not have the benefit of specific inducement allegations to
`
`understand the alleged relevance of those applications to CyWee’s newly disclosed induced
`
`infringement theory. As there is now no effective remedy to cure the prejudice to Samsung,
`
`Samsung respectfully requests that the Court strike the induced infringement allegations from the
`
`expert reports of Dr. Donald Brown and Dr. Joseph LaViola and preclude CyWee from
`
`presenting its induced infringement theory at trial.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`CyWee’s Complaint and the First Amended Complaint
`
`CyWee filed its Complaint on February 17, 2017 and its First Amended Complaint on
`
`March 2, 2017. Dkt. Nos. 1, 9. Regarding induced infringement, both the Complaint and the First
`
`Amended Complaint state the following:
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 12449
`
`
`Samsung has and is continuing to actively and knowingly induce,
`with specific intent, infringement of the ’438 Patent under 35
`U.S.C. § 271(b) by making, using, offering for sale, importing,
`and/or selling ’438 Accused Products, all with knowledge of the
`’438 Patent and its claims. As a result of discussions starting in
`June 2016, Samsung understands that its activities cause others—
`including distributors, resellers, and end users—to infringe the
`’438 Patent. Samsung encourages and facilitates infringing sales
`and uses of its products through the creation and dissemination of
`those products, promotional and marketing materials, product
`manuals, instructions, and/or technical materials to distributors,
`resellers, and end users.
`
`Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 25, Dkt. No. 9 ¶ 25; see also Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 36, Dkt. No. 9 ¶ 206 (same allegations
`
`directed to the ’978 Patent). Neither the Complaint nor the First Amended Complaint detail any
`
`evidence related to CyWee’s allegation that third parties (i.e., distributors, resellers, and end
`
`users) infringe the patents-in-suit. See id.
`
`B.
`
`CyWee’s Original and Supplemental Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`CyWee’s original infringement contentions, served on July 12, 2017, do not mention
`
`induced infringement, let alone provide a factual basis to support such a claim. Ex. 1. CyWee’s
`
`infringement contention claim charts are similarly silent, providing no evidence related to its
`
`induced infringement allegations. See, e.g., Exs. 2–3.
`
`
`
`CyWee served supplemental
`
`infringement contentions on September 18, 2017,
`
`September 10, 2018, October 4, 2018, and October 25, 2018. See Exs. 4, 7, 10. Like CyWee’s
`
`original infringement contentions, none of the supplemental infringement contentions mention
`
`induced infringement or provide any notice of what evidence CyWee contends supports its
`
`induced infringement allegations. See, e.g., Exs. 5–6, 8–9, 11–12.
`
`C.
`
`Expert Reports of Dr. Brown and Dr. LaViola
`
`
`
`On October 8, 2018, CyWee served the expert reports of Dr. Donald Brown and Dr.
`
`Joseph LaViola. In Dr. Brown’s report, he purportedly
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 12450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Dr. LaViola’s report, he opines that
`
`
`
`
`
`Aside from serving a notice of its subpoena on Vito Technology, Inc. (“Vito Tech”),
`
`
`
`
`
`any of the third party applications upon which Dr. Brown and Dr. LaViola rely to support their
`
`, on May 31, 2018, CyWee never previously referred to
`
`opinions regarding CyWee’s induced infringement allegations.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CyWee did not mention any of these applications in its pleadings or any version of its
`infringement contentions.
`2 Under the original Docket Control Order, the deadline to complete fact discovery and file
`motions to compel was May 28, 2018. Dkt. No. 34. That deadline was extended to July 31, 2018
`in the Amended Docket Control Order, which issued on May 10, 2018. Dkt. No. 96.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 12451
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`
`Disclosures Required in a Party’s Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`Under Local Patent Rule 3-1, a party’s infringement contentions must disclose “each
`
`accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality…of each
`
`opposing party of which the party is aware” for each asserted claim. EON Corp. IP Holdings,
`
`LLC. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 6:10-CV-379 LED-JDL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196820, at *13
`
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2012). The disclosure must contain adequate detail regarding the essential
`
`components of the alleged infringing device, so as to allow a defendant to “connect the dots” of
`
`an infringement allegation. Id. at *14. “A party may not rely on vague conclusory language or
`
`simply mimic the language of the claims.” Id. (citing Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, No.
`
`6:07-cv-559, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1644, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009)).
`
`B.
`
`Amendment of a Party’s Infringement Contentions
`
`
`
`Under Local Patent Rule 3-6, a party’s infringement contentions “shall be deemed to be
`
`that party’s final contentions,” with two exceptions. First, P.R. 3-6(a)(1) allows a party to amend
`
`its infringement contentions without leave within 30 days of the Court’s claim construction
`
`ruling.3 Second, P.R. 3-6(b) provides that a party may amend its infringement contentions at any
`
`other time “only by order of the Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good
`
`cause.” Requiring leave to amend infringement contentions serves to ensure that parties alleging
`
`3 The Court issued its Claim Construction Opinion and Order on July 9, 2018. Dkt. No. 117.
`Thus, CyWee cannot rely on this exception.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 12452
`
`
`infringement “‘formulate, test, and crystalize their infringement theories’ early in the case, so
`
`that ‘the case takes a clear path, focusing discovery on building precise final infringement or
`
`invalidity contentions and narrowing issues for Markman, summary judgment, trial, and
`
`beyond.’” Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL
`
`4517953, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) (quoting Realtime Data, LLC v. Actian Corp., No.
`
`6:15-cv-463, 2016 WL 9340797, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2016)).
`
`
`
`Fifth Circuit courts apply a non-exclusive list of factors to determine whether good cause
`
`exists to grant a party leave to amend. See, e.g., Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc., 84 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 538, 541 (E.D. Tex. 2015); Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp., No.
`
`9:06-cv-151, 2009 WL 5842062, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2009). Those factors include: (1) the
`
`length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (2) the reason for the delay,
`
`including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; (3) whether the offending
`
`party was diligent in seeking an extension of time, or in supplementing discovery, after an
`
`alleged need to disclose the new matter became apparent; (4) the importance of the particular
`
`matter, and if vital to the case, whether a lesser sanction would adequately address the other
`
`factors to be considered and also deter future violations of the court's scheduling orders, local
`
`rules, and the federal rules of procedure; and (5) the danger of unfair prejudice to the non-
`
`movant. Id. The party seeking leave bears the burden of establishing that it was diligent. O2
`
`Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`C.
`
`Duty to Supplement Discovery Responses
`
`
`
`Under the Discovery Order entered in this case, “each party is under a duty to supplement
`
`or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information on the basis of which it
`
`knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or incorrect when made, or is no
`
`longer complete or true.” Dkt. No. 35 ¶ 8.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 12453
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`CyWee’s Infringement Contentions Do Not Fairly Disclose Its Induced
`Infringement Theory and CyWee Has Not (and Refuses to) Amend Its
`Infringement Contentions to Disclose That Theory
`
`
`
`Despite only generically alleging induced infringement in its Complaint and again in its
`
`First Amended Complaint, and despite serving multiple iterations of infringement contentions
`
`since that time, CyWee never disclosed any information regarding the third-party applications on
`
`which its induced infringement claims now rely. Not until CyWee served its expert reports on
`
`October 8, 2018—15 months after CyWee served its initial infringement contentions and more
`
`than two months after the close of fact discovery—did CyWee decide to introduce this induced
`
`infringement theory.
`
`
`
`In EON, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the portions of the plaintiff’s
`
`technical expert report addressing its induced infringement allegations. EON, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 196820, at *16. The Court explained that “[plaintiff’s] broad characterization of its
`
`inducement theory against [defendant] in its infringement contentions cannot overcome its
`
`failure to precisely identify the components [that allegedly support plaintiff’s induced
`
`infringement theory].” Id. at *15. Like the plaintiff in EON, CyWee completely failed to identify
`
`in its infringement contentions any of the third party applications it now offers in support of its
`
`induced infringement claims.
`
`
`
`Even if CyWee had attempted to amend its infringement contentions at the last minute
`
`before serving its expert reports, it would already have waited far too long to be diligent. Indeed,
`
`courts have found shorter delays excessive. Sycamore, 2017 WL 4517953, at *2–3; O2 Micro,
`
`467 F.3d at 1367; see also Semcon IP Inc. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00437-
`
`JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 9538515, at *1–2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017). For example, in Sycamore, the
`
`Court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s doctrine of equivalents theories
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:
` 12454
`
`
`from its expert report and precluded the plaintiff from presenting those theories at trial, finding
`
`that the plaintiff was not diligent because it waited three months after it should have known of
`
`the need to assert those theories before it attempted to amend. See Sycamore, 2017 WL 4517953,
`
`at *2.
`
`
`
`Likewise, in O2 Micro, the court held that a plaintiff’s three month delay in seeking to
`
`amend its infringement contentions was excessive. O2 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1366–68. Although the
`
`plaintiff argued it had only learned of the need to amend from a deposition of one of the
`
`plaintiff’s witnesses three months earlier, the court found that the plaintiff was not diligent in
`
`seeking to amend. Id.
`
`
`
`Here, CyWee did not make (and still has not made) any attempt whatsoever to amend its
`
`infringement contentions to disclose its induced infringement allegations, let alone identify any
`
`third party applications allegedly supporting an induced infringement theory. Instead, CyWee
`
`improperly waited until it served its expert reports on October 8, 2018—15 months after it served
`
`its original infringement contentions on July 12, 2017 and more than two months after the close
`
`of fact discovery—to fairly disclose that theory.
`
`B.
`
`CyWee Cannot Show Good Cause for Its Failure to Timely Disclose Its
`Induced Infringement Theory
`
`
`
`CyWee had ample time to develop its induced infringement theory, especially in view of
`
`the fact that it sought and received the benefit of an extension of fact discovery by over two
`
`months. CyWee used this extension to serve a subpoena seeking source code from one third
`
`party upon which CyWee now bases its indirect infringement theory. Dkt. Nos. 79, 96. CyWee
`
`never served subpoenas on the third party developers of the other applications upon which it
`
`bases its indirect infringement theory. CyWee then sought and received the benefit of two further
`
`extensions to expert discovery deadlines, citing difficulty with third-party discovery efforts. Dkt.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:
` 12455
`
`
`Nos. 122, 123, 155, 156. Yet CyWee never attempted to amend its infringement contentions to
`
`disclose any information about the third party applications it disclosed for the first time through
`
`its expert reports as a basis for induced infringement.
`
`
`
`CyWee has offered two excuses. First, CyWee insists that it provided Samsung adequate
`
`notice of its induced infringement theory in its Complaint and First Amended Complaint. Ex. 15.
`
`Second, CyWee alleges that it could not provide further analysis supporting its inducement
`
`allegations because it had “only recently been able to supplement its infringement contentions
`
`based upon Samsung’s in-house sensor fusion code, and Dr. LaViola’s opinions
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. Neither of those excuses has merit.
`
`
`
`CyWee’s boilerplate disclosure of induced infringement in its Complaint and First
`
`Amended Complaint is inadequate. This Court has made clear that generic disclosures of an
`
`infringement theory—like CyWee’s induced infringement allegations in its Complaint and First
`
`Amended Complaint—do not satisfy the Local Patent Rules. See, e.g., EON, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 196820, at *14–15. Indeed, “[i]nfringement contentions are intended to frame the scope
`
`of the case in order to provide for ‘full, timely discovery and provide parties with adequate
`
`notice and information with which to litigate their case.’” Id. at *13 (citing Nike, Inc. v. Adidas
`
`Am. Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 664, 667 (E.D. Tex. 2007); Realtime Data, LLC v. Packeteer, Inc., No.
`
`6:08-cv-144, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73217, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2009)). Here, CyWee’s
`
`allegations in both its Complaint and First Amended Complaint provide little more than a
`
`recitation of the elements of an induced infringement claim and do not mention any of the third-
`
`party applications now relied upon by its experts.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:
` 12456
`
`
`
`
`CyWee’s excuse that its induced infringement allegations rely on an analysis of the
`
`sensor fusion code installed on the accused devices is contradicted by its own experts’ reports.
`
`None of the analysis in those reports
`
`
`
` Ex. 13 ¶¶ 60–96; Ex. 14 ¶¶ 50–61.
`
`Instead, Dr. Brown allegedly
`
`
`
`Further, Dr. Brown analyzed a portion of the source code
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 13 ¶¶ 61–66. That source code was belatedly produced to Samsung by CyWee on October 2,
`
`2018—more than two months after the close of fact discovery and less than a week before
`
`CyWee served Dr. Brown’s and Dr. LaViola’s expert reports.4 Samsung had no control over
`
`CyWee’s ability to procure source code from the
`
` or the timeframe in
`
`which CyWee procured that source code. Indeed,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`code—only now understood to be relevant to CyWee’s then-undisclosed induced infringement
`
` The blame for the delay in producing that source
`
`theory—rests solely on CyWee.
`
`
`
`Thus, CyWee has failed to provide any acceptable excuse for its delay in disclosing the
`
`basis of its induced infringement allegations.
`
`
`4 The Discovery Order requires a party that receives documents from a third party pursuant to a
`subpoena to produce those documents to the opposing party within 5 days. Dkt. No. 35 ¶ 12(c).
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:
` 12457
`
`
`C.
`
`The Potential Prejudice to Samsung Is Substantial
`
`
`
`Samsung will suffer substantial prejudice if CyWee’s induced infringement allegations
`
`are allowed to stand. Before the service of its October 8, 2018 expert reports, CyWee had only
`
`disclosed facts allegedly supporting its direct infringement claims. However, Dr. Brown’s and
`
`Dr. LaViola’s reports now rely on previously undisclosed evidence regarding the third party
`
`applications to conclude that Samsung induced infringement of the patents-in-suit. Regardless of
`
`the length of time Samsung had to review that evidence, CyWee had significantly more time to
`
`consider it than CyWee afforded to Samsung.
`
`
`
`Because CyWee did not disclose the factual underpinnings of its induced infringement
`
`theory in any of its pleadings or infringement contentions, Samsung had no way to know the
`
`identity of the third party applications CyWee now relies upon, preventing Samsung from taking
`
`critical discovery of the developers of those applications. Moreover, by the time CyWee’s
`
`induced infringement theory was finally made known to Samsung by way of CyWee’s expert
`
`reports, Samsung was left with an unreasonably short amount of time to analyze CyWee’s basis
`
`for these new induced infringement allegations.
`
`
`
`Further, while CyWee’s expert reports identify the third party applications on which
`
`CyWee bases its new induced infringement theory, those reports provide little evidentiary
`
`support upon which to assess CyWee’s expert’s testing. Dr. Brown’s report alleges
`
`
`
`
`
`CyWee’s induced infringement allegations rest on a very shaky foundation. For example,
`
` Ex. 13 ¶¶ 67–96. Indeed,
`
` Exs. 16, 17. As another example, as to
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:
` 12458
`
`
` referenced in Dr. Brown’s report, CyWee has provided no evidentiary basis—in the form of
`
`a declaration or otherwise—connecting that source code to an allegedly infringing application
`
`running on an accused device, let alone connecting it to the unidentified version that Dr. Brown
`
`allegedly tested. CyWee’s failure to timely disclose its induced infringement contentions as
`
`required under P.R. 3-1 and 3-6 not only gave Samsung’s experts insufficient time to investigate
`
`those allegations, but has also prevented Samsung from investigating those allegations, given
`
`that Samsung did not know the identity of the applications CyWee now relies upon. That this late
`
`disclosure is supported only with incomplete and unreliable evidence accentuates the prejudice
`
`imposed on Samsung.
`
`
`
`In contrast, CyWee will suffer minimal prejudice if its induced infringement allegations
`
`are struck. CyWee previously litigated the patents-in-suit against Apple, and in that case—as was
`
`the situation in this case before CyWee served its experts reports—CyWee relied solely on a
`
`direct infringement theory. See Sycamore, 2017 WL 4517953, at *4 (noting that plaintiff had
`
`only relied on a direct infringement theory in previous cases regarding the same patents-in-suit to
`
`support the conclusion that the plaintiff would not be unfairly prejudiced). Indeed, in its case
`
`against Apple, CyWee’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint
`
`do not contain any detail regarding the third party applications upon which CyWee’s current
`
`induced infringement claims rest. Ex. 18 ¶¶ 17, 30; Ex. 19 ¶¶ 17, 30; Ex. 20 ¶¶ 16, 29. Similarly,
`
`neither CyWee’s original infringement contentions nor its amended infringement contentions in
`
`the Apple case contain any evidence related to applications that allegedly support induced
`
`infringement. Brann Decl. ¶ 22. Given that CyWee did not rely on an induced infringement
`
`theory in litigating the same patents against Apple, CyWee cannot now assert that its induced
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:
` 12459
`
`
`infringement claims are central to its case and that striking those claims will cause it unfair
`
`prejudice.
`
`
`
`Moreover, CyWee could have avoided prejudicing Samsung by producing the evidence
`
`underlying Dr. Brown’s and Dr. LaViola’s induced infringement analyses when that evidence
`
`was originally obtained. Samsung could have promptly started its own investigation had CyWee
`
`simply identified the third party applications on which it intended to rely. But CyWee never
`
`disclosed that it intended to rely on third party applications at all. CyWee did not identify those
`
`third party applications until it served its expert reports on October 8, 2018, and only produced
`
` upon which its experts relied a mere six days before serving those
`
`reports.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, because Samsung should not be forced to bear the unfair consequences of
`
`CyWee’s failure to timely disclose the basis of its induced infringement theory, and because
`
`CyWee would not be unfairly prejudiced, Samsung respectfully requests that CyWee’s induced
`
`infringement allegations be struck from its expert reports and that CyWee be precluded from
`
`pursuing its induced infringement claims at trial.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`CyWee failed to timely disclose its induced infringement theory, without an acceptable
`
`excuse, and that unexcused failure has unfairly prejudiced Samsung. Accordingly, Samsung
`
`respectfully requests that CyWee’s induced infringement allegations be struck from the expert
`
`reports of Dr. Donald Brown and Dr. Joseph LaViola and that CyWee be precluded from
`
`presenting that theory at trial. In the alternative, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court
`
`grant Samsung leave to take additional discovery into the pertinent third party applications, to
`
`allow its experts adequate time to investigate and address CyWee’s belatedly disclosed evidence,
`
`and grant Samsung leave to amend its rebuttal expert reports if appropriate.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:
` 12460
`
`
`DATED: January 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`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
`Facsimile:
`(650) 320-1900
`
`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
`Facsimile:
`(212) 319-4090
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 222873
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile:
`(858) 458-3005
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`TX Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 285 Filed 01/10/19 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:
` 12461
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rules CV-7(h) and (i), counsel for the Defendants met and conferred
`
`with counsel for the Plaintiff on November 16, 2018 in a good faith attempt to resolve the
`
`matters raised by this motion. No agreement could be reached. Plaintiff indicated it opposes the
`
`relief requested by this motion. Thus, these discussions have conclusively ended in an impasse
`
`and leave an open issue for the Court to resolve.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`
`
`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 January 3, 2019. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`