throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 6129
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.’s OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`SUPPLEMENT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 6130
`
`
`
`On July 10, 2019, Maxell produced a document from the Digital Camera Museum website
`
`regarding old models of digital cameras, including the Casio QV-8000SX (“Casio Camera”). Decl.
`
`of Tiffany Miller (“Miller Decl.”) at ¶¶ 2-4 (showing excerpt of produced Digital Camera Museum
`
`screenshots). Four months later, Apple asserts good cause exists to supplement its invalidity
`
`contentions because someone discovered the same website on October 16, 2019. Mot at 3, Gibson
`
`Decl. at ¶ 3. Good cause does not exist. Apple cannot claim it has been diligent, and the website
`
`was difficult to locate, when it was produced by Maxell months earlier. Apple’s motion
`
`demonstrates that Apple has treated the Patent Rule deadlines the same way it treated the discovery
`
`deadlines in this case—it looks at them as a starting point for compliance. Apple has serially
`
`avoided its obligations before this Court, likely in hope that the case would be transferred and it
`
`would be given a second chance to prepare its case. Such games should not be rewarded and Apple
`
`should not be permitted to untimely add readily-discoverable products to the case.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under the Local Rules, leave to amend invalidity contentions “may be made only by order
`
`of the Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good cause.” P.R. 3-6(b). Good cause
`
`“requires a showing of diligence.” O2 micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d
`
`1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). For this analysis, the Court weighs multiple factors, which include
`
`(1) the length of and reason for the delay, including whether the moving party has been diligent,
`
`(2) the importance of the amendment, (3) the potential prejudice in allowing the amendment, and
`
`4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. See e.g., Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest
`
`Labs, Inc., 84 F.Supp.3d 538, 540-41 (E.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting Computer Acceleration Corp. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 481 F.Supp.2d 620, 625 (E.D. Tex. 2007)); Arbitron, Inc. v. Int’l Demographics
`
`Inc., 2008 WL 4755761, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2008) (citing S & W Enters., L.L.C. v. Southtrust
`
`Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003)).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 6131
`
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Apple’s motion is nothing more than an effort to correct for its own lack of diligence.
`
`Maxell produced the website in question over a month before Apple’s invalidity contentions were
`
`due. If Apple had simply reviewed the production—as any diligent defendant would—and
`
`followed up on the information therein, it could have easily met its deadline. A party must show
`
`good cause to supplement its contentions. Given the foregoing, Apple cannot.
`
`A.
`
`Apple’s explanation for its delay in identifying the Casio Camera is
`misleading.
`
`The first factor in evaluating a defendant’s motion for leave to amend invalidity
`
`contentions—the length of and reason for the delay, including whether the moving party has been
`
`diligent—weighs heavily against Apple.
`
`Apple’s statement that it has been diligent in developing its invalidity defenses is belied by
`
`the facts. Apple asserts that it, a law firm working on its behalf, and a prior art search firm all
`
`performed prior art searches prior to the deadline for Apple’s invalidity contentions. Mot. at 2.
`
`Yet, according to Apple, Apple was not aware of—and apparently could not discover—the Casio
`
`Camera until Erise IP “discovered a German website published by an individual camera enthusiast
`
`that contained information relating to old models of digital cameras.” Mot. at 3. That website was
`
`http://digitalkameramuseum.de. Mot. at Gibson Decl. ¶ 3. Screenshots of this exact website,
`
`however, had been produced by Maxell on July 10, 2019. Miller Decl. at ¶¶ 2-3. Maxell provides
`
`in the accompanying Declaration screenshots from http://digitalkameramuseum.de taken on
`
`November 21, 2019 and as produced by Maxell on July 10, 2019. Miller Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4 (produced
`
`screenshot), ¶ 5 (screenshot taken November 21, 2019). Both specifically contain the identification
`
`of the Casio QV-8000SX, which establishes conclusively that Apple had the information about
`
`this alleged prior art product as early as July 10, 2019, more than a month before its Invalidity
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 6132
`
`
`
`Contentions were first due. Id. Apple cannot rely on a website it has had in its possession for over
`
`four months as a basis for adding new prior art to the case now.
`
`Apple’s claims that information regarding the Casio Camera was difficult to locate—
`
`setting aside the fact it was already in Apple’s possession by July 10—are similarly misleading.
`
`Apple asserts that “[f]ollowing the leads from camera enthusiasts’ websites to try to locate product
`
`information was time consuming because manufacturers like Casio stopped selling these products
`
`nearly twenty years ago, literature and specifications were not always archived from so long
`
`ago….” Mot. at 3. But in its proposed supplementation, the primary Casio Camera document on
`
`which Apple relies is the product User’s Guide. See Mot. at Ex. B. Casio itself provides a copy on
`
`its website, under “Manuals,” as shown below:
`
`Miller Decl., at ¶¶ 6-7. All Apple had to do was check the Casio website, or run a simple Google
`
`
`
`search, hardly the difficult, time consuming process Apple claims.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 6133
`
`
`
`Even assuming it took several days for Apple to locate information regarding the Casio
`
`Camera once identified, had Apple actually been diligent, it still would have had time to determine
`
`the alleged relevance of the Camera prior to the deadline for its invalidity contentions. Specifically,
`
`Apple asserts it discovered the German website on October 16 and the relevance of the camera
`
`became apparent nine days later, on October 25. Mot. at 3-4. Given Maxell’s production of the
`
`website on July 10, Apple should have reached its conclusion as early as July 19, a month before
`
`its contentions were due on August 14. Miller Decl. at ¶ 2; D.I. 46 (DCO).
`
`This Court has regularly denied requests to supplement invalidity contentions where a
`
`defendant could not establish why it did not include the reference in the contentions in the first
`
`instance. See, e.g., Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 4:14-CV-
`
`371, 2016 WL 3854700, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016) (“The Court finds that Defendants have
`
`not demonstrated diligence or shown good cause to amend. Defendants do not provide an adequate
`
`explanation for why they did not include the proposed references and combinations in the original
`
`invalidity contentions.”); Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00522-JRG,
`
`2014 WL 2796555, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 19, 2014) (denying motion to supplement, stating in
`
`part, “While Defendants have acted promptly in bringing these new arts to the attention of Plaintiff
`
`and the Court, they have failed to explain why, with reasonable diligence, they could not have
`
`discovered such arts prior to the deadline for filing Invalidity Contentions.”); MacroSolve, Inc. v.
`
`Antenna Software, Inc., No. 6:11-CV-287-MHS-JDL, 2013 WL 3833079, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 23,
`
`2013) (“Defendants were not diligent in their investigation, discovery, and presentation of prior
`
`art references, and further, lack an adequate explanation for failing to present these references at
`
`an earlier date. With respect to GEICO, it cannot account for its activities between the date it filed
`
`its invalidity contentions on September 24, 2012, and the date it finally sought to amend the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6134
`
`
`
`invalidity contentions on April 16, 2013.”); Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist.
`
`Ct. Motions 639136 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2009) (“Because an attempt to amend invalidity
`
`contentions asks the Court to waive the deadline for the submission of those contentions, the
`
`movant must show that it could not have included the proffered amendment at the proper time,
`
`despite reasonable diligence.”) (citations omitted).
`
`There is no reason that Apple should not have known about the German camera website
`
`until October. It was produced directly to them in July. In view of Apple’s failure to review or
`
`follow up on Maxell’s production, Apple’s claimed diligence in informing Maxell of the new prior
`
`art is irrelevant. Apple provides no justifiable basis for its delay. It was not diligent and Factor 1
`
`weighs strongly against granting leave to add the camera to the case at this stage.
`
`B.
`
`Apple has not shown the Casio Camera to be important.
`
`The second factor in evaluating a defendant’s motion for leave to amend its invalidity
`
`contentions—the importance of the amendment—also weighs against Apple.
`
`Apple asserts that the Casio Camera is important prior art because it anticipates several
`
`asserted claims of the ’493 patent and renders the remaining asserted claims obvious. Mot. at 5.
`
`But the mere fact a reference may support a claim of invalidity cannot alone establish importance
`
`of the reference or good cause. If that were the rule, the factor would be meaningless because a
`
`party would never seek leave to add a reference it did not believe supported its position.
`
`In considering this factor, the importance of the reference must be considered in view of
`
`the invalidity contentions as a whole, including whether the new prior art discloses features not
`
`present in the previously identified art. See, e.g., Tech Pharmacy Servs., LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC, No.
`
`4:15-CV-766, 2017 WL 2833460, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2017), reconsideration denied, No.
`
`4:15-CV-766, 2017 WL 1319556 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2017) (denying leave to amend invalidity
`
`contentions where proposed amendment was meant to supplement details of previously disclosed
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 6135
`
`
`
`prior art product); MacroSolve, No. 6:11-CV-287, 2013 WL 3833079, at *3 (in a discussion
`
`holding that defendants had failed to prove that prior art references were important, “GEICO fails
`
`to show the distinctive value of the recently discovered prior art references. In other words, GEICO
`
`does not show the seven references are not cumulative in light of the other 250 prior art references
`
`already asserted …”).
`
`In its invalidity contentions, Apple identified 28 prior art patents and publications and 5
`
`prior art systems for the ’493 Patent. Miller Decl. at ¶ 8. Apple has not argued, let alone shown,
`
`that the Casio Camera discloses features that were not present in the previously asserted references.
`
`Given Apple’s failure to demonstrate some unique importance of the Casio Camera, this factor too
`
`weighs against granting Apple’s motion for leave.
`
`C.
`
`Unfair prejudice and availability of a continuance to Maxell do not support
`granting Apple’s motion.
`
`Apple did not disclose the Casio Camera until after the parties had already filed the P.R.
`
`4-3(a) Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. D.I. 46 (DCO). Courts have deemed
`
`that the disclosure of new prior art even before this deadline were prejudicially late. See, e.g.,
`
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00442-JRG, Dkt. No. 218, at *5 (E.D. Tex. July
`
`6, 2018) (“Additionally, this reference was not disclosed to SEVEN until after the P.R. 4-1
`
`deadline. While Defendants argue that “SEVEN had ample opportunity to review Xiao before the
`
`P.R. 4-2 deadline and has not identified any claim terms or constructions relevant to this
`
`reference,” the time between the P.R. 4-1 and 4-2 disclosures is a relatively short 20 days. Their
`
`argument essentially ‘requir[es] SEVEN to investigate and defend against contentions that are not
`
`now, and may never be, included in this case,’ and places too high a burden on a plaintiff.”).
`
`Further, even if the prejudice to Maxell were deemed low or remediable by a continuance,
`
`courts in this district have held that “[a] lack of prejudice [ ], supposing that there was truly no
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 6136
`
`
`
`prejudice, is not sufficient to demonstrate good cause without more; to hold otherwise would
`
`change the showing from one of good cause to one of no prejudice and absolve the movant from
`
`a failure based on harm to the opposing party alone.” SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 2:17-
`
`cv-442-JRG, Dkt. No. 198, slip copy at 2 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2018) (citing Grudowski v. Butler
`
`Paper Co., 670 F. Supp. 242, 248 (N.D. Ind. 1987) (“By itself a lack of prejudice is not sufficient
`
`to sanction deviation from important established procedures.”).
`
`“The Local Rules and the Patent Rules of the Eastern District of Texas are not mere
`
`‘guidelines.’ Litigants and the Court both rely on the Local Rules and Patent Rules to ensure an
`
`orderly litigation and the proper development of the same. This struggles to happen when one
`
`side’s theory of the case is constantly shifting.” Seven Networks, No. 2:17-cv-00442-JRG, Dkt.
`
`No. 218, at *4. Apple itself has touted the purpose of the importance of early disclosures in moving
`
`to strike Maxell’s infringement contentions. See, e.g., D.I. 123 at 1, 6. It is surprising Apple would
`
`simultaneously criticize Maxell’s thorough contentions as defeating the purpose of the local rules
`
`while requesting the Court to permit Apple’s own shifting contentions. Apple cannot be left to
`
`comply with the rules and deadlines at its convenience. It has already become a problem in this
`
`litigation and will continue to be so should they be permitted leave to amend their invalidity
`
`contentions based on the circumstances here.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Apple has again exhibited that it does not believe it must comply with the deadlines of this
`
`case. Apple’s proffered “diligence” in discovering the Casio Camera is undermined by the facts of
`
`the case, as well as by simple internet searches. There is no justifiable basis for why Apple did not
`
`or could not have identified the Casio Camera in its initial invalidity contentions. Without any such
`
`basis, there is no good cause for granting leave to amend.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 6137
`
`
`
`Dated: November 29, 2019
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`/s/ Geoff Culbertson
`Geoff Culbertson
`Kelly Tidwell
`Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
`2800 Texas Boulevard (75503)
`Post Office Box 5398
`Texarkana, TX 75505-5398
`Telephone: (903) 792-7080
`Facsimile: (903) 792-8233
`gpc@texarkanalaw.com
`kbt@texarkanalaw.com
`
`Jamie B. Beaber
`Alan M. Grimaldi
`Kfir B. Levy
`James A. Fussell, III
`Baldine B. Paul
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Saqib J. Siddiqui
`Bryan C. Nese
`William J. Barrow
`Alison T. Gelsleichter
`Clark S. Bakewell
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 263-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`jbeaber@mayerbrown.com
`agrimaldi@mayerbrown.com
`klevy@mayerbrown.com
`jfussell@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`tmiller@mayerbrown.com
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`bnese@mayerbrown.com
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`agelsleichter@mayerbrown.com
`cbakewell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda Streff Bonner
`Mayer Brown LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 782-0600
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 148 Filed 11/29/19 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 6138
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`asbonner@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served this 29th day of November, 2019, with a copy of this document
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`/s/ Geoff Culbertson
`Geoff Culbertson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

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