Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 49175
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`NETLIST, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`and SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Case No. 2:21cv463-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG’S SUR-REPLY TO NETLIST’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`CERTAIN OPINIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT JOHN B. HALBERT (Dkt. 207)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 49176
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Mr. Halbert’s Opinions on JEDEC Customs and Practices Are Proper ............................. 1
`
`Mr. Halbert’s Opinions on Patent Disclosures Are Relevant and Not Prejudicial ............. 4
`
`III. Mr. Halbert’s Rebuttal Apportionment Opinions Are Reliable .......................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 49177
`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 3 of 12 PagelD #: 49177
`
`CSCS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent Enter. USA Inc.
`No. 6:15-cv-00163, 2017 WL 345991 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017) .0.....cecceeccecceeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeees2
`
`Intell. Ventures ILLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00577, Dkt. No. 297 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2019) 00... occcecceeeccceceeececeseeeseenseeeseeees5
`
`U.S. ex rel. Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A.,
`No. 4:14-cv-00833, 2022 WL 1226968 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2022) ........cceccececceseeeeeeeeseeeeneeees4
`
`Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00230, Dkt. No. 228 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2017) .........cccecceccecceecceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee5
`
`Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Hard Rock Café Int’l, Inc.,
`951 F.2d 684 (Sth Cir. 1992) oo... ccccecececcccsccessceesccesseeesecesscesccesseeeseceseesseceseceseceeseesseessseeseees5
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp.,
`No. 9:06-cv-00151, 2009 WL 5842063 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) ..0........ecceeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeee3
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)oo... ccccccccccccccceesceescceesecesecessecesecesecesesessecesecesseessstesseeeseceeseeees3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 27 occccccccccccccceccesccessccesseesseessecessceesecesscessecesscesecessceaecesseeseeesseesseeeasesseeesecesseeesscesseeesees 3
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 49178
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Mr. Halbert’s Opinions on JEDEC Customs and Practices Are Proper
`
`Netlist mischaracterizes ¶¶ 49, 55, 57 of Mr. Halbert’s opening report to seek their
`
`exclusion. Dkt. No. 303 at 3-5. Netlist includes a laundry list of statements that purportedly
`
`attack Netlist’s motivations and intent, claiming they state “[Netlist] ‘misappropriate[d]’ JEDEC
`
`members’ contributions” and that “[Netlist’s] behavior was viewed ‘dishonorably by JEDEC and
`
`its members.’” Id. at 3. But two of the three paragraphs that Netlist moves to strike do not even
`
`mention Netlist. Dkt. No. 207-3 at ¶¶ 49, 57. When asked at deposition, Mr. Halbert confirmed
`
`that he is not engaging in the type of “intemperate allegations” that Netlist accuses him of
`
`engaging in. Dkt. No. 303 at 3, 5; Ex. 14 at 68:8-12. That Netlist is forced to take Mr. Halbert’s
`
`statements out of context speaks volumes as to the strength of this motion.
`
`Instead of offering testimony on Nelist’s motivations, Mr. Halbert’s report describes
`
`JEDEC’s customary practices related to patenting and patent disclosures. First, Mr. Halbert
`
`describes the normal course of conduct in JEDEC as a uniquely “collaborative environment . . .
`
`in which numerous companies propose, refine, and develop technologies for the benefit of the
`
`industry at large” while still retaining their ability to “protect their own contributions through
`
`patenting.” Dkt. No. 207-3 at ¶ 49. Second, Mr. Halbert provides relevant insight into the
`
`customs and practices surrounding JEDEC’s membership and RAND obligations, as well as
`
`industry expectations for the disclosure of potentially essential patents. Id. at ¶¶ 55 (opining that
`
`“it is highly unusual for JEDEC member companies to come and go from JEDEC” and that
`
`“do[ing] so in order to pursue litigation against other JEDEC member companies . . . would be
`
`considered inconsistent with JEDEC’s policies and ethos.”), 57 (discussing the effects “[i]f a
`
`member were to subvert the Patent Policy by failing to disclose Potentially Essential Patents of
`
`which it is aware”). As Netlist has mischaracterized Mr. Halbert’s report, Netlist has not shown
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 49179
`
`
`
`his opinions are irrelevant or improper.1, 2
`
`As an initial matter, Netlist does not dispute that Mr. Halbert’s opinions are relevant to
`
`Samsung’s equitable defenses, including waiver, estoppel, inequitable conduct, and laches. Dkt.
`
`No. 303 at 3-4. Netlist’s motion should be denied for that reason alone. This Court routinely
`
`receives expert testimony in weighing equitable issues. For example, in Chrimar Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Alcatel-Lucent Enter. USA Inc., the Court faced a defendant’s claim that the patentee was
`
`equitably “estopped from enforcing the patents-in-suit . . . by failing to disclose the patent family
`
`to the IEEE.” No. 6:15-cv-00163, 2017 WL 345991, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017). The Court
`
`found “testimony from the parties’ IEEE experts [was] necessary for the Court to fully resolve
`
`this question,” and considered expert opinions from both sides to adjudicate the issue. Id.
`
`Netlist is not prejudiced by evidence of the industry norms it was expected to follow.
`
`Netlist nevertheless seeks to exclude Mr. Halbert’s opinions as irrelevant based on its
`
`own about-face in its infringement theories. Netlist’s preliminary infringement contentions
`
`relied almost exclusively on the JEDEC standards, and Netlist asserted that four of the asserted
`
`patents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Netlist’s argument that Mr. Halbert contradicts the “undisputed factual record” regarding the
`timing of Netlist’s lawsuits against SK hynix is not relevant, as Mr. Halbert does not provide the
`“intemperate allegations” that Netlist relies on for its motion. Dkt. No. 303 at 3, 5; Dkt. No. 207
`at 1; Ex. 14 at 68:8-12.
`2 Netlist is not concerned with the type of opinion Mr. Halbert offers, it is concerned with its own
`opinions being challenged at trial. Netlist’s own expert Mr. Gillingham provides opinions on
`issues which Netlist claims are improper, although Mr. Gillingham’s opinions actually are based
`only on the self-serving testimony of Netlist’s CEO. See Dkt. No. 269-2 at ¶¶ 47-52 (alleging in
`part that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (citing Dkt. No. 269-13 at 197:16-19, 198:22-199:3)).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 49180
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 269-4 at 44. Only recently
`
`is Netlist no longer “contending the patents are essential.” Dkt. No. 303 at 4.
`
`Even still, Netlist has only offered to forgo reliance on JEDEC for a small sliver of
`
`issues—the claims of standard essentiality. Netlist’s discovery responses and expert reports still
`
`rely heavily on JEDEC, so any promise of what it may do at trial is premature. Mr. Halbert’s
`
`opinions therefore remain relevant to numerous issues in this case. His opinions regarding
`
`technologies jointly developed within JEDEC, and the expectations for patenting, licensing, and
`
`enforcing members’ individual contributions to those technologies, are relevant to the jury’s
`
`valuation of the claimed inventions for damages. VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d
`
`1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Netlist seeks to conceal the fact that the complex JEDEC standards
`
`used by the accused products are the result of a massive effort by many industry participants, but
`
`it would be error for this Court to permit it to do so.
`
`Mr. Halbert’s opinions are also highly relevant to Netlist’s allegations of indirect
`
`infringement and willfulness, even if Netlist’s expert no longer intends to rely on JEDEC
`
`standards for direct infringement. Willfulness, inducement, and contributory infringement
`
`require knowledge of an asserted patent and its infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 271. It is
`
`undisputed that both Samsung and Netlist attended the JEDEC meetings where the standards
`
`practiced by the accused products were developed. The Court should permit the jury to evaluate
`
`Netlist’s actions (and inaction) at those meetings against the backdrop of JEDEC’s customary
`
`practices with respect to patenting, patent disclosures, and RAND obligations to determine
`
`whether Samsung knew of the asserted patents or its alleged infringement. See Tyco Healthcare
`
`Grp., LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp., No. 9:06-cv-00151, 2009 WL 5842063, at *2 n.3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) (permitting expert opinion regarding industry customs where “the fact that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 49181
`
`
`
`an opinion of counsel was not obtained, despite the fact that the custom in the industry is to
`
`routinely do so, may have bearing on a determination of whether the alleged infringer knew or
`
`should have known about the objectively defined risk”).
`
`Netlist further claims that Mr. Halbert’s opinions on JEDEC’s policies and practices are
`
`not relevant because Samsung has not pled counterclaims for breach or misappropriation. Dkt.
`
`No. 303 at 4. But as explained above, Mr. Halbert’s opinions are relevant to damages as well as
`
`Samsung’s affirmative defenses, including issues before the jury. Mr. Halbert’s opinions are
`
`proper as relating to his specialized knowledge that will aid the jury. See U.S. ex rel. Mitchell v.
`
`CIT Bank, N.A., No. 4:14-cv-00833, 2022 WL 1226968, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2022).
`
`II. Mr. Halbert’s Opinions on Patent Disclosures Are Relevant and Not Prejudicial
`
`Netlist’s plea to exclude Mr. Halbert’s opinions because it no longer intends to rely on
`
`the JEDEC standards to prove direct infringement ignores the myriad of other issues to which
`
`Netlist’s prior patent disclosures remain relevant. Netlist and its experts heavily relied on
`
`JEDEC and Netlist’s alleged innovation during this case, and to this day rely on Netlist’s activity
`
`at JEDEC, including patent disclosures. See, e.g., Ex. 15 at 27 (deposition designations relying
`
`on JEDEC disclosures); Dkt. No. 269-6 at 195:15-196:1. Dr. Mangione-Smith relies on Netlist’s
`
`disclosure of relatives to the patents-in-suit to allege willfulness and indirect infringement. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 16 at Ex. A, ¶ 325. Mr. Gillingham relies on similar disclosures to rebut Samsung’s
`
`laches and estoppel defenses. Ex. 17 at ¶¶ 70-74. And Netlist’s corporate representatives claim
`
`it disclosed its innovations to JEDEC, and that JEDEC adopted those innovations into the
`
`relevant standards. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 269-13 at 198:22-199:3. Netlist’s eleventh-hour partial
`
`trial strategy shift does not render Mr. Halbert’s rebuttal to Netlist’s allegations improper.
`
`While Netlist claims that its history of false patent declarations to JEDEC is too
`
`prejudicial, any prejudice is far outweighed by the relevance of Mr. Halbert’s opinions rebutting
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 49182
`
`
`
`Netlist’s claims in this case. For this reason alone, the authority that Netlist cites is inapplicable
`
`here.3 The Court should permit the jury to hear Mr. Halbert’s opinions so that it may fully
`
`understand the weight and relevance to afford Netlist’s patent disclosures to JEDEC.
`
`III. Mr. Halbert’s Rebuttal Apportionment Opinions Are Reliable
`
`Mr. Halbert offers a rebuttal to Netlist’s damages expert Mr. Kennedy’s unreliable
`
`apportionment analysis, which is required so that Mr. Meyer can properly value the allegedly
`
`infringing features of the accused products. Unlike Mr. Kennedy’s apportionment analysis—
`
`which looks to Samsung’s company-wide revenue and R&D budgets that include wholly
`
`unrelated products like refrigerators, televisions, and washing machines—Mr. Halbert’s analysis
`
`focuses on the specific contributions of the parties to the DDR4 and DDR5 standards relied on
`
`by Netlist. For example, for the ’506, ’339, ’918, and ’054 patents, Netlist contends that the
`
` to the
`
`DDR4 and DDR5 standards, and Mr. Halbert opined on the contributions made to those same
`
`standards. Dkt. No. 269-4 at 44. Whether Netlist intends to present evidence of infringement by
`
`use of the standards is irrelevant to the fact that Netlist has already admitted that the asserted
`
`patents, in its own view, are directly tied to the standards that Mr. Halbert cites. Netlist’s last
`
`minute, trial-driven strategy shift is irrelevant to Mr. Halbert’s opinions, which demonstrate that
`
`these products are the result of a massive effort that Netlist failed to contribute to. The Court
`
`should therefore permit the jury to hear Mr. Halbert’s reliable rebuttal testimony.
`
`
`3 The Court in Texas Pig did not exclude evidence of other litigations because it was prejudicial,
`but because it “would not have served any legitimate purpose.” Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Hard
`Rock Café Int’l, Inc., 951 F.2d 684, 691 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout
`Sys., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00230, Dkt. No. 228, at 9 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 29, 2017) (addressing
`proceedings in Germany). Notably, this Court in Intellectual Ventures made clear that “[i]f
`there’s a reason” prior litigation between the parties is relevant, the parties are permitted to
`“approach the bench and get leave” to present it to the jury. Intell. Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile
`USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00577, Dkt. No. 297, at 175 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2019).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 49183
`
`
`
`Date: March 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Francis J. Albert
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`TX Bar No. 04820550
`cordell@fr.com
`Michael J. McKeon
`D.C. Bar No. 459780
`mckeon@fr.com
`Lauren A. Degnan
`D.C. Bar No. 452421
`LAD@fr.com
`Brian Livedalen
`D.C. Bar No. 1002699
`livedalen@fr.com
`Daniel A. Tishman
`D.C. Bar No. 1013923
`tishman@fr.com
`Matthew Mosteller
`CA Bar No. 324808
`mosteller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`
`Katherine Reardon
`NY Bar No. 5196910
`kreardon@fr.com
`Sara C. Fish
`GA Bar No. 873853
`sfish@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1180 Peachtree St., NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 892-5005
`Facsimile: (404) 892-5002
`
`Francis J. Albert
`CA Bar No. 247741
`albert@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Ste. 400
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 49184
`
`
`
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070
`Facsimile: (858) 678-5099
`
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Texas Bar No. 24032992
`reger@fr.com
`Matthew Colvin
`Texas Bar No. 24087331
`colvin@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070
`Facsimile: (214) 747-2091
`
`Karolina Jesien
`New York Bar No. KJ7292
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`Times Square Tower
`20th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 765-5070
`Facsimile: (212) 258-2291
`
`Melissa Richards Smith
`melissa@gillamsmith.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Alice J. Ahn
`CA 271399 / DC 1004350
`aahn@cov.com
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`415 Mission Street, Ste. 5400
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 591-7091
`Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
`
`Brian R. Nester
`D.C. Bar No. 460225
`bnester@cov.com
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 49185
`
`
`
`One City Center
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4956
`Telephone: (202)-662-6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and
`Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 365 Filed 03/09/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 49186
`
`
`
`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 March 3, 2023. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record have 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
`
`electronic mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Francis J. Albert
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`I certify that the following document is authorized to be filed under seal pursuant to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Francis J. Albert
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`