Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 154 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 6170
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Civil Action NO. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS COMPLIANT WITH PATENT RULE 3-1(G)
`OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO PRECLUDE MAXELL’S RELIANCE ON
`SOURCE CODE FOR INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 154 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 6171
`
`
`In opposition to Apple’s motion to compel compliance with Rule 3-1(g), Maxell
`
`submitted its entire Supplemental Infringement Contentions (SIC), arguing that “[e]ven a cursory
`
`review will establish how detailed and thorough they are.” D.I. 145 at 7 n.5. No doubt Maxell
`
`hopes to sway the Court with the sheer length of its SIC. But the SIC’s volume reflects neither
`
`thoroughness nor specificity. Even a cursory inspection reveals thousands of pages of source
`
`code file and folder names, indiscriminately copied and pasted across multiple claim elements,
`
`all without any specific citations or further explanation. Nothing in these pages describes with
`
`specificity how the source code of any accused product infringes any claim element.
`
`For example, in its Motion, Apple identified the “mixing or culling” steps of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,339,493 and the “processor” steps of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991. Maxell does not dispute
`
`that it invoked Rule 3-1(g) for the claims of both patents. See D.I. 145 at 2. Maxell’s 1,080-
`
`page SIC for the ’493 patent claims is found in Appendix 3. More than 580 pages comprise
`
`substantially overlapping lists of source code folders and file names:
`
`Claim element 1.b: pp. 72-117 (46 pages)
`Claim element 1.d: pp. 135-181 (47 pages)
`Claim element 1.f: pp. 200-245 (46 pages)
`Claim element 4.b: pp. 292-350 (59 pages)
`Claim element 5.b: pp. 422-467 (46 pages)
`Claim element 5.d: pp. 487-532 (46 pages)
`
`These bulk listings fail to identify “location of the [claimed elements] in the source code.”
`
`Claim element 5.e: pp. 539-585 (47 pages)
`Claim element 6.b: pp. 629-687 (59 pages)
`Claim element 10.b: pp. 759-804 (46 pages)
`Claim element 10.d: pp. 822-868 (47 pages)
`Claim element 10.e: pp. 880-925 (46 pages)
`Claim element 10.f: pp. 933-978 (46 pages)
`
`Michael S Sutton Ltd. v. Nokia Corp., No. 6:07-CV-203, 2009 WL 9051240, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Feb. 13, 2009). Nor does the rest of Appendix 3 provide any explanation as to how any actual
`
`source code allegedly infringes Maxell’s claims. Claim element 1(d) begins with several pages
`
`of conjecture about how Apple’s software operates based on “information and belief”—
`
`allegations copied from Maxell’s original contentions. Appendix 3 at 128-134. But with all of
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 154 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 6172
`
`
`the source code having been made available to Maxell months ago, Maxell cannot continue to
`
`rely on “information and belief” and was required to supplement its contentions to identify the
`
`specific algorithms that it alleges to perform the claimed steps, e.g., “mixing or culling signal
`
`charges . . . to provide pixel lines only at pixel intervals of K1 pixels.” See Apple’s Mot, D.I.
`
`123 at 3-4. The failure to do so leaves Maxell free to allege that undisclosed combinations of
`
`algorithms from a 47-page list of source code files “mix” or “cull” to arrive at undisclosed N and
`
`K1 values1—precisely the type of “litigation by ambush” prohibited by Rule 3-1(g).
`
`The 1,102-page SIC for the ’991 patent in Appendix 6 fares no better. Claim elements
`
`1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 8.f, 8.i, 8.j, and 8.k each contain more than 70 pages of source code file names and
`
`folders totaling 507 pages. See Appendix 6 at 154-226, 232-303, 307-378, 638-710, 769-841,
`
`847-918, 922-993. For claim element 1.f, Maxell provides pages of screenshots allegedly
`
`showing that the “processor pauses the displaying of the first digital information and renders the
`
`camera operative.” Appendix 6 at 138-154. But without identifying what algorithm(s) “pauses
`
`the displaying . . . and renders the camera operative,” Maxell’s expert would be permitted to use
`
`any combination of code from different file folders to allege performance of the claim steps.2
`
`Having relied on Rule 3-1(g) to demand source code from Apple, Maxell cannot now
`
`decide to ignore that rule for its own tactical advantage. Zix Corp. v. Echoworx Corp., No. 2:15-
`
`CV-1272-JRG, 2016 WL 3410367, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2016). P.R. 3-1(g) requires Maxell to
`
`disclose how the source code allegedly infringes the claims—Maxell cannot circumvent this
`
`requirement by generating thousands of pages of repeated file and folder name listings.
`
`
`1 Maxell cites a table of exemplary values in its opposition, but tries to reserve the right to rely
`on “similar numbers” or completely “different values of K1.” Appendix 3 at 134-35.
`2 Maxell’s misleading claim that it cited only a small portion of the produced code fails to count
`the source code folders cited in full. D.I. 145-1. A single folder can contain up to 27,000 files.
`Apple’s Mot, D.I. 123 at 2.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 154 Filed 12/04/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 6173
`
`
`Dated: December 4, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Luann L. Simmons
`
`
`
`Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou (Pro Hac Vice)
`vzhou@omm.com
`Anthony G. Beasley (TX #24093882)
`tbeasley@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Laura Bayne Gore (Pro Hac Vice)
`lbayne@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)
`melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 154 Filed 12/04/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 6174
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 4, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`