Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 279 PageID #: 16931
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL LTD.,
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ZTE (USA), INC.’S RULE 50 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`MATTER OF LAW AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
`RULE 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 2 of 279 PageID #: 16932
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 
`I. 
`II.  Legal Standard Regarding JMOLs and Motions For New Trial ............................................1 
`III. 
`JMOLs ....................................................................................................................................2 
`A.  Non-Infringement ......................................................................................................... 2 
`1. 
`Standard of Law Regarding Non-Infringement ....................................................2 
`2.  Non-Infringement of the ‘794 Patent ....................................................................3 
`a.  There Is No Evidence Of A Controller For Controlling
`Operation Of Said Function Devices Based On Said
`Remaining Capacity ........................................................................................3 
`b.  There Is No Evidence Of The Controller Sending A Power
`Consumption Reduction Instruction To Each Function
`Device As Required By The Claims ...............................................................5 
`
`
`c. 
`
`
`....................................................................................................9 
`d.  Maxell’s Expert Applied A Claim Construction of “Function
`Device” That Is Inconsistent With The Court’s Claim
`Construction Order .......................................................................................10 
`3.  Non-Infringement of the ’317 patent ..................................................................11 
`a.  Asserted Claims of the ’317 Patent are Hardware-Software
`Combination Apparatus Claims ....................................................................11 
`b.  Plaintiff Failed to Provide Any Evidence or Opinions Based
`on the Correct Version of AT&T Navigator Distributed with
`the Accused Product .....................................................................................12 
`4.  Non-Infringement of the ‘493 and ‘729 Patents .................................................15 
`a.  ‘493 Patent, Claim 5 .....................................................................................15 
`b.  ‘729 Patent, Claim 1 .....................................................................................22 
`5.  Non-Infringement of the ‘491 and ‘695 patents (audio patents) ........................25 
`a.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence Sufficient to Prove
`Infringement of Claim 8 of the ‘491 Patent ..................................................26 
`b.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence Sufficient to Prove
`Infringement of Claim 1 of the ‘491 Patent ..................................................28 
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 3 of 279 PageID #: 16933
`
`
`b. 
`
`c.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence Sufficient to Prove
`Infringement of Claim 1 of the ‘695 Patent ..................................................31 
`6.  Non-Infringement of the ’193 Patent ..................................................................32 
`a.  There is No Evidence That the Controller Controls a Gain of
`the Variable Amplitude Amplifier ................................................................32 
`b.  There is No Evidence That the Control Signal is Based on a
`Set of Bias and Gain Data Stored in Said Memory ......................................35 
`B.  Damages Must Be Limited for Failure to Mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287 to Begin
`Accruing No Earlier than the Date of the Complaint .......................................................... 37 
`1. 
`Standard of Law Regarding Marking .................................................................37 
`2.  Argument ............................................................................................................38 
`
`a. 
`
`...............................................38 
`
` ...........................................................................39 
`c.  Maxell’s Damages Must Be Reduced to Account for Its
`Failure to Mark, or, in the Alternative, ZTE Is Entitled to a
`New Trial on Damages .................................................................................40 
`C.  Willfulness .................................................................................................................. 41 
`1.  Knowledge of Asserted Patents ..........................................................................42 
`a.  Legal Standard Regarding Knowledge of Asserted Patents .........................42 
`b.  Maxell’s Willfulness Claim is Limited to Negotiation
`Conduct .........................................................................................................42 
`c.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence of Imputed Knowledge of
`Patents-In-Suit ..............................................................................................43 
`d.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence of ZTE USA’s Knowledge
`of the Patents-In-Suit on the Specific Dates Alleged ...................................45 
`Subjective Knowledge of Infringement ..............................................................48 
`a.  Standard of Law Regarding Subjective Knowledge of
`Infringement..................................................................................................48 
`b.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence that ZTE USA Believed the
`Patents-In-Suit Are Valid..............................................................................49 
`c.  Maxell Failed to Offer Evidence that ZTE USA Knew Its
`Actions Infringed Any Patent-in-Suit ...........................................................50 
`
`2. 
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 4 of 279 PageID #: 16934
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ..............................................52 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`...................53 
` in Post-
`JMOL is Appropriate as Against the Award of
`Verdict Damages Because An Award of Post-Verdict Damages Based
`Upon an Ongoing Royalty is Entrusted to the Court, Not the Jury ....................54 
`The Court Should Conduct Its Own Analysis to Set Royalty Rates to be
`Applied to ZTE’s Actual Post-Verdict Sales ......................................................56 
`Invalidity Under Section 101 ................................................................................................57 
`1. 
`Standard of Law Regarding Invalidity................................................................58 
`2.  Claims 1 and 2 of the ’794 Patent Lack Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ............58 
`3.  Claims 1-3 of the ’317 Patent Lack Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ...................60 
`VI.  Motion for New Trial ............................................................................................................63 
`A.  ZTE Did Not Receive a Fair Trial .............................................................................. 63 
`1. 
`Introduction .........................................................................................................63 
`2.  Background .........................................................................................................64 
`
`a. 
`.............................................64 
`b.  The Jury’s Verdict.........................................................................................66 
`Legal Authority ...................................................................................................67 
`3. 
`4.  Argument ............................................................................................................68 
`B.  New Trial Should be Granted Due To Closing Misconduct ....................................... 70 
`C.  New Trial Should Be Granted Regarding Errors in Evidentiary Rulings ................... 71 
`a.  Use of Certain Documents and Testimony Violated FRE 408 .....................72 
`b.  Use of Certain Documents and Testimony Violated FRE 408 .....................74 
`D.  The Court Should Grant a New Trial as to Damages Because Maxell Offered
`Prejudicial Testimony and Argument Inviting the Jury to Apply the Entire Market Value
`Rule 75 
`E.  A New Trial is Necessary on Damages as to the ‘317 Patent Because Ms. Mulhern
`Based Her Royalty Calculations on a JMOL Rate .............................................................. 80 
`VII.  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................80 
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 5 of 279 PageID #: 16935
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases 
`
`Page(s)
`
`ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Switchcraft, Inc.,
`281 Fed. Appx. 989 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 2
`
`Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Yeatts,
`122 F.2d 350 (4th Cir. 1941) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................... 61
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ...................................................................................................... 58, 59
`
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Autoclear, LLC,
`606 F. Supp. 2d 617 (E.D. Va. 2008) ..................................................................................... 68
`
`Amado v. Microsoft Corp.,
`517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 57
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................. 37, 38, 41, 48
`
`Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care,
`493 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Avocet Sports,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51650, 2012 WL 1030031 ................................................................ 44
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................... 62
`
`Biovail Corp. Int'l v. Andrx Pharms., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 2
`
`Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Allegheny Techs., Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162456 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2012)...................................................... 73
`
`Cf. SynQor Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-497-TJW-CE, 2011 WL 3625036 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2011) ......................... 79
`
`Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer,
`522 F.2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975) .................................................................................................. 68
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 6 of 279 PageID #: 16936
`
`
`Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................... 76
`
`Content Guard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`Case Nos. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG, 2:14-CV-61-JRG, 2015 WL 11089749 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 6, 2015) .................................................................................................................. 78
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Lg Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193616 (E.D. Tex 2016) ................................................................... 52
`
`Creative Internet Advertising Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`674 F. Supp. 2d 847 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .................................................................................... 57
`
`Diamond Grading Techs. v. Am. Gem Soc'y,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105697 (E.D. Tex. 2016) (J. Schroeder) ........................................... 42
`
`Dorman Prods., Inc. v. Paccar, Inc.,
`201 F. Supp. 3d 663 (E.D. Pa. 2016) ...................................................................................... 49
`
`Dura Auto. Sys. of Indiana, Inc. v. CTS Corp.,
`285 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 36
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., L.L.C.,
`731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................... 59
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75517 (E.D. Tex. May 18,
`2017) ....................................................................................................................................... 52
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 3034655 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2017) ........................ 54, 57
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’ns Tech. Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00011-RSP, 2018 WL 2149736 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2018) ............................... 55
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D–Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................... 76
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., L.L.C.,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................... 76
`
`Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp.,
`No. 13-723-LPS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171939 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) ........................... 49
`
`v
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 7 of 279 PageID #: 16937
`
`
`Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersystems Indus. Prods., Inc.,
`897 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1990)................................................................................................. 49
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ............................................................................................................ 42
`
`Hirschkop v. Snead,
`594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979) .................................................................................................. 68
`
`IBM v. Groupon, Inc.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100333 (D. Del. June 15, 2018) ........................................................ 75
`
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593
`(2010) ...................................................................................................................................... 58
`
`In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 59
`
`InCom Corp. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71319 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) ......................................................... 44
`
`Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124152 (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2016) ................................................. 45, 46
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................... 62
`
`Littlefuse, Inc. v. Pac. Eng'g Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-14957, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184067 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2013) .................... 73
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
` 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009).............................................................................................. 55
`
`Mayola v. Alabama,
`623 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1980) ............................................................................................ 68, 69
`
`Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc.
`No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL 5873711 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012) ........................... 79
`
`Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`739 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115100 (E.D. Tex. July 11, 2018)..................................................... 50
`
`Paradox Sec. Sys., Ltd. v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc.,
`388 Fed. Appx. 976 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`vi
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 8 of 279 PageID #: 16938
`
`
`Polara Eng'g, Inc. v. Campbell Co.,
`2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18741 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 51
`
`Princeton Dig. Image Corp. v. Harmonix Music Sys.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67485 (D. Del. Apr. 16, 2018) .......................................................... 43
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), vacated in part on other grounds, 137 S. Ct.
`954 (2017) ............................................................................................................................... 55
`
`QS Wholesale, Inc. v. World Mktg.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193992 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2013) ....................................................... 72
`
`ReefEdge Networks, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`29 F. Supp. 3d 455 (D. Del. 2014) .......................................................................................... 44
`
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Sentius Int’l v. Microsoft,
`No. 5:13-cv-00825-PSG, 2015 WL 451950 (ND Cal Jan. 27, 2015) ..................................... 80
`
`Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc.,
`671 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Smith v. Transworld Drilling,
`773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Software Research, Inc. v. Dynatrace LLC,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111468 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) ....................................................... 43
`
`State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
`751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1986)............................................................................................... 46
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................... 78, 79, 80
`
`United States v. Arledge,
`553 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 72
`
`United States v. Chagra,
`669 F.2d 241 (5th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................. 68
`
`United States v. Edwards,
`303 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 72
`
`United States v. Lipscomb,
`299 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 69
`
`vii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 9 of 279 PageID #: 16939
`
`
`Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Elekta AB,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91226, 2016 WL 3748772 (D. Del. 2016) ........................................ 44
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D. Del. 2016) ........................................................................................ 48
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................... 76
`
`Warner–Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................... 42
`
`WCM Indus., Inc. v. IPS Corp.,
`721 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 52
`
`ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164031 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2015) ...................................................... 75
`
`ZitoVault, LLC v. International Bus. Machines Corp.,
`2018 WL 2971131 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) ....................................................................... 43
`
`Statutes and Codes 
`
`United States Code
`Title 35 Section 101 .......................................................................................................... 58, 60
`Title 35 Section 283 .......................................................................................................... 53, 54
`Title 35 Section 287 ................................................................................................................ 37
`Title 35 Section 287(a)............................................................................................................ 37
`
`Rules and Regulations 
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`Rule 50(a)............................................................................................................................ 1, 52
`Rule 50(b) ............................................................................................................................... 58
`Rule 52 .................................................................................................................................... 58
`Rule 59 .................................................................................................................................. 1, 2
`Rule 59(a)................................................................................................................................ 37
`Rule 59(a)(1) ............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence
`Rule 403 .................................................................................................................................. 79
`Rule 408 ...................................................................................................................... 73, 74, 75
`Rule 408(b) ................................................................................................................. 72, 73, 74
`
`viii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 10 of 279 PageID #: 16940
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) and 50(b), defendant ZTE (USA), Inc. (“ZTE” or “ZTE
`
`USA”) respectfully submits this Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”) and Motion
`
`for New Trial (“MNT”). For the reasons set forth below, ZTE requests these motions be granted.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard Regarding JMOLs and Motions For New Trial
`
`Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when “a reasonable jury would not have a
`
`legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a). In
`
`evaluating motions for judgment as a matter of law, a court must “draw all reasonable inferences
`
`in the light most favorable to the verdict and cannot substitute other inferences that [the court]
`
`might regard as more reasonable.” E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., L.L.C., 731 F.3d 444, 452
`
`(5th Cir. 2013). A court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as those
`
`are solely functions of the jury. See id. (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530
`
`U.S. 133, 150–51 (2000)). However, the Court gives “credence to evidence supporting the
`
`moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached if that evidence comes from disinterested
`
`witnesses.” Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, 493 F.3d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 2007).
`
`“The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues[.]” Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 59(a)(1). “Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure confirms the trial court’s historic
`
`power to grant a new trial based on its appraisal of the fairness of the trial and the reliability of the
`
`jury’s verdict.” Smith v. Transworld Drilling, 773 F.2d 610, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1985). The trial
`
`court’s power to grant a new trial has “long been regarded as an integral part of trial by jury.” Id.
`
`at 613. “[I]f the trial judge is not satisfied with the verdict of a jury, he has the right—and indeed
`
`the duty—to set the verdict aside and order a new trial.” Id.
`
`Examples of grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion include “if the district court finds the verdict
`
`is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 11 of 279 PageID #: 16941
`
`
`prejudicial error was committed in its course.” Id. In deciding to grant a new trial, the Court
`
`“need not take the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict winner, but may weigh the
`
`evidence.” Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1982) (“This standard, of
`
`course, is lower than that for a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A
`
`verdict can be against the ‘great weight of the evidence’, and thus justify a new trial, even if
`
`there is substantial evidence to support it.”). Courts have long recognized the power of a trial
`
`judge to set aside a verdict and “grant a new trial in any case where the ends of justice so
`
`require.” Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350, 354 (4th Cir. 1941) (detailing history
`
`of Rule 59).
`
`III.
`
`JMOLs
`A.
`Non-Infringement
`1.
`
`Standard of Law Regarding Non-Infringement
`
`Infringement involves “comparison of the claim to the accused device, [and] requires a
`
`determination that every claim limitation or its equivalent be found in the accused device.” ADC
`
`Telecomms., Inc. v. Switchcraft, Inc., 281 Fed. App’x. 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Warner–
`
`Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997)). In an infringement analysis,
`
`the burden always remains on the patent owner. See id. at 992 (“As an initial matter, we need not
`
`address the merits of Switchcraft's testing method, because it was ADC's burden as the patentee
`
`to introduce preponderant evidence of infringement, rather than Switchcraft's burden to present
`
`evidence of noninfringement.”) (citing Biovail Corp. Int'l v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 239 F.3d 1297,
`
`1302 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). An expert witness’s conclusory statements that an accused device
`
`contains a claimed limitation are not enough to meet that burden. See Paradox Sec. Sys., Ltd. v.
`
`ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 388 Fed. App’x. 976, 981–82 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 12 of 279 PageID #: 16942
`
`
`2.
`
`Non-Infringement of the ‘794 Patent
`
`Maxell Ltd. (“Maxell” or “Hitachi”) failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a
`
`jury finding of infringement. With respect to Claim 1, and Claim 2 which is dependent thereon,
`
`Maxell failed to meet its burden of proving the ZMAX 2 includes multiple limitations, as shown
`
`below. Any one of these failures justifies entry of judgment as a matter of law because no
`
`reasonable jury could have found that the ZMAX 2 infringes the ‘794 patent. Dkt. 243 at 41:1-
`
`42:4. In the alternative, Maxell’s expert, Dr. Phinney’s, conclusory infringement analysis,
`
`inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language of the second limitation
`
`of claims 1 and 2, and further inconsistent with the Court’s construction of “function device,”
`
`warrants a new trial on this issue. Moreover, for all the reasons described below, Dr. Phinney’s
`
`faulty, barebones analysis contributed to the jury’s verdict, which stands against the great weight
`
`of the evidence and, in the alternative, warrants a new trial on this issue.
`
`a.
`
`No Evidence Of A Controller For Controlling Operation Of
`Said Function Devices Based On Said Remaining Capacity
`
`Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘794 patent require “a controller for controlling operation of said
`
`function devices based on said remaining capacity.” Thus, the claims require that the controller
`
`controls operation of the function devices based on said remaining capacity – not some other
`
`trigger. There is no basis on which a reasonable jury could find this requirement is met.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Dkt. 239 at 59:9-60:4; Dkt. 240 at 10:22-11:18,
`
`11:21-12:11, 17:20-24, 18:20-19:13; Dkt. 243 at 37:2-38:1, 42:9-46:25; Dkt. 244 at 23:21-24:25,
`
`25:14-21;
`
`.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 13 of 279 PageID #: 16943
`
`
`240 at 15:7-17.
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id.; Dkt.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, Maxell failed
`
`to provide sufficient evidence that the ZMAX 2 in power saver mode meets this limitation.
`
`Maxell also failed to provide sufficient evidence that this limitation is met in the accused
`
`battery saver mode.
`
`
`
`
`
`; Dkt. 240 at 29:12-17;
`
` However,
`
`Dr. Wolfe testified regarding tests that he performed in which WiFi was operating normally
`
`while the ZMAX 2 was in battery saver mode, that it did not work in any reduced power way in
`
`this mode, and thus the controller does not control operation of the WiFi modem based on a
`
`remaining capacity. Dkt. 243 at 47:10-52:10; Dkt. 244 at 26:22-27:18. Dr. Phinney did not
`
`provide any evidence to show that the WiFi modem works in a low power way in battery saver
`
`mode, nor did he provide results of any testing or other evidence to show that the WiFi modem
`
`works in any reduced power manner in this mode. Dr. Phinney did not provide any testimony or
`
`evidence that would rebut Dr. Wolfe’s tests and testimony showing that the WiFi modem works
`
`normally while in battery saver mode.
`
`For all the reasons described above, Maxell also failed to provide sufficient evidence that
`
`the ZMAX 2 meets the limitation requiring that power consumption reduction instructions are
`
`sent “when said capacity detector detects remaining battery capacities NA and NB” of claims 1
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-00179-RWS Document 288 Filed 08/07/18 Page 14 of 279 PageID #: 16944
`
`
`and 2. For example, in power saver mode, as explained above, these instructions are sent (if at
`
`all) when a user makes the choice to enter power saver mode, not when a capacity detector
`
`detects a remaining capacity NA or NB. See Dkt. 243 at 39:18-40:17.
`
`b.
`
`There Is No Evidence Of The Controller Sending A Power
`Consumption Reduction Instruction To Each Function Device
`As Required By The Claims
`
`Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘794 patent also require that “said controller sends a power
`
`consumption reduction instruction to each function device included in a set GA if NA is
`
`detected…and to each function device of a set GB if NB is detected.” To demonstrate
`
`infringement, Maxell must have offered evidence of the controller sending a power consumption
`
`reduction instruction to each function device in sets GA and GB when the appropriate threshold
`
`(NA or NB) is reached. Maxell’s expert, Dr. Phinney, agreed that the claims require sending a
`
`power consumption reduction instruction to each of the function devices. Dkt. 240 at 5:2-6:4; see
`
`also Dkt. 243 at 38:2-16, 39:8-17.
`
`Dr. Phinney failed to provide sufficient evidence of a power consumption reduction
`
`instruction sent from the controller to each function device in set GA as required by the claim.
`
`.
`
`; Dkt. 240 at 29:12-17;
`
`
`
`. Thus, Dr. Phinney was required to show evidence of a power consumpti