Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 7943
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.:
`Apple’s Motion to Compel Compliant Infringement Contentions
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`January 8, 2020
`
`
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.:
`Apple’s Motion to Compel Compliant Infringement Contentions
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`January 8, 2020
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 7944
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 7944
`
`Patent Rule 3-4(a)
`
`P.R. 3-4(a):_ specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork,
`
`formulas, or other documentation—
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 7945
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 29 PagelD #: 7945
`
`Patent Rule 3-1(g)
`
`P.R. 3-1(g):
`
`If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim
`
`element is a software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1
`
`for those claim elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused
`
`lnstrumentality is produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party
`claiming patent infringement shall
`identify, on an—
`- for each asserted claim.—
`
`DJ. 42 (Discovery Order) at 2,
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 7946
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 4 of 29 PagelD #: 7946
`
`Maxell Invoked P.R. 3-1(g) for All Asserted Claims
`
`7,10,16,17,18
`
`P.R. 3-1(g) in Initial Contentions
`
`11/6/19 Maxell’s Claim Election
`
`1—3,5—15,17,and18
`
`1,3,13,17
`
`1—6
`
`1,3—5, 7—11,and 13
`
`1,6, and7
`
`1,2,3
`
`3,13
`
`1,6,7
`
`2,5,6,and12—15
`
`6,12,14,15
`
`1—7
`
`1—5 and 8—12
`
`1—3 and 5—14
`
`1,3—6,10, and 11
`
`1—2, 6—7, 9—10,13—14, and 16—18
`
`1—5
`
`1,4,12
`
`1,3, 5, 6, 9, 14
`
`1,4, 5, 6,10
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 7947
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 7948
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 6 of 29 PagelD #: 7948
`
`Patent Rule Requires Specific Citations to Source Code
`
`
`
`\
`
`K ”Accordingly, UltimatePointer SHALL amend its infringement contentions for
`claims requiring software instructions to—
`- by December 13, 2013.”
`
`UltimatePointer v. Nintendo, No. 6:11-CV-496-LED, 2013 WL 6253767, at *3 (ED. Tex. Dec. 3, 2013)
`
`
`
`
`"While [citing to a source code file ”emspacker.c”] may provide some
`information on Sutton's infringement theory,—
`— Thus Nokia is left guessing as to the alleged location
`of the steps in the source code. Consequently, Sutton’s claim chart does not
`
`show the location of each element and thus does not meet the standard set by
`
`Patent Rule 3—1(c).”
`
`Michael 5 Sutton Ltd. V. Nokia, No. 6:07CV203, 2009 WL 9051240, at *2 (ED. Tex. Feb. 13, 2009)
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 7949
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 7949
`
`The Length of Maxell’s Contentions Does Not Demonstrate Specificity...
`
`
`
`Patent Rules require specificity: Maxell s contentions Include 3,000
`
`K ”A party must 'be as specific as
`possible in its contentions.”
`
`Zix Corp. V. Echoworx Corp., No. 2:1 S—CV—1 272-J RG,
`
`2016 WL 3410367, at *1-2 (ED. Tex. May 13, 2016)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 7950
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 8 of 29 PagelD #: 7950
`
`Example: ’493 Claim Element 1(d)
`
`IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`m’"‘°’”
`7- 7-375mm l‘ffigfgg,’
`"
`
`5-335:3"." mm
`‘
`
`493 Patent at claim 1.
`
`1. An electric camera comprising:
`[a] an image sensing device with a light receiving sensor hav-
`ing an array of pixels arranged vertically and horizon-
`tally in a grid pattern,
`in an N number of vertically
`arranged pixel lines, wherein N is equal to or greater than
`three times a number of efl‘ective seaming lines M of a
`display screen;
`[b] a signal processing unit, that generates image signals by
`using the output signals ofthe image sensing device; and
`[C] a display unit with the display screen, to display an image
`corresponding to the image signals;
`
`[d]
`
`[8] wherein during recording in a moving video mode, the
`signal processing unit generates image signals by mix-
`ing or culling signal charges accumulated in the N num-
`ber of vertically arranged pixel lines to provide pixel
`lines only at pixel intervals of K2 pixels, a value of K1
`being different from a value of K2; and
`[f] wherein during recording in the static image mode, the
`signal processing unit generates the image signals by
`using all signal charges accumulated in the N number of
`vertically arranged pixel lines, to provide N pixel lines.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 7951
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 7952
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 7953
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 7954
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 7955
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 7956
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 7957
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 7958
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 16 of 29 PagelD #: 7958
`
`Patent Rules Prohibit Litigation By Ambush
`
`
`
`”The local patent rules exist to further the goal of full, timely discovery and
`
`provide all parties with adequate notice and information with which to litigate
`
`their cases, not to create supposed loopholes through which parties may
`practice—
`
`Compuz‘erAcce/eration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp, 503 F. Supp. 2d 819, 822 (ED. Tex. 2007)
`
`
`
`
`"Apartymust— ZixCorp's
`amended infringement contentions are in several instances vague and
`
`conclusory.
`In other instances they merely recite claim language without
`providing Echoworx with notice as to—
`— the Court finds that
`ZixCorp’s amended infringement contentions have not met the requirements
`
`of PR. 3-1(g), which applies here."
`
`Z/Lr Corp. V. Echoworx Corp, No. 2:15-CV—1272-JRG, 2016 WL 3410367, at *1 -2 (ED. Tex. May 13, 2016
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 7959
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 7960
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 19 of 29 PageID #: 7961
`
`Maxell’s Reasons For Refusing To Comply With P.R. 3-1(g)
`
`1. Apple’s source code production is “incomplete”
`
`2. Maxell argues that its non-source code contentions are sufficiently specific
`
`3. Patent Rules do not require specific / pinpoint citations
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 20 of 29 PageID #: 7962
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 21 of 29 PageID #: 7963
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 21 of 29 PageID #: 7963
`
`Patent Rule 3-4(a)
`
`P.R. 3-4(a):_ specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork,
`
`formulas, or other documentation—
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 22 of 29 PageID #: 7964
`
`Maxell’s Reasons For Refusing To Comply With P.R. 3-1(g)
`
`1. Apple’s source code production is “incomplete”
` Red herring argument; Apple is asking Maxell to provide specific citations to
`produced source code
`2. Maxell argues that its non-source code contentions are sufficiently specific
`
`3. Patent Rules do not require specific / pinpoint citations
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 23 of 29 PageID #: 7965
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 23 of 29 PagelD #: 7965
`
`Maxell Cannot Rely on Source Code and Refuse to Provide
`Specific Citations
`
`
`
`Under P.R. 3-1 (g), ZixCorp has
`
`
`
`QK ”ZixCorp triggered P.R. 3-1(g) of the Discovery Order.
`
`an obligation to serve amended infringement contentions that identify, ’on an
`
`element—by—element basis for each asserted claim, what source code of each Accused
`
`Instrumentality allegedly satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim
`
`elements.’
`
`ZiX Corp. V. Echoworx Corp, No. 2:15-CV—1272-JRG, 2016 WL 3410367, at *1 -2 (ED. Tex. May 13, 2016)
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 24 of 29 PageID #: 7966
`
`Maxell’s Reasons For Refusing To Comply With P.R. 3-1(g)
`
`1. Apple’s source code production is “incomplete”
` Red herring argument; Apple is asking Maxell to provide specific citations to
`produced source code
`2. Maxell argues that its non source code contentions are sufficiently specific
` Refuted by Court’s decision in Zixv. Echoworx
` Maxell should be precluded from relying on source code if it refuses to comply
`with P.R. 3-1(g)
`3. Patent Rule do not require specific / pinpoint citations
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 25 of 29 PageID #: 7967
`
`Maxell’s Argument: Pinpoint Citation Not Required
`
`Maxell mischaracterizes ElbitSys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys.,
`LLC, No. 2:15-CV-00037-RWS-RSP, 2017 WL 2651618, (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2017):
` Patentee invoked P.R. 3-1(g) on the belief that “further evidence for [the
`claim] limitations would exist in third-party source code”
` When that belief turned out to be false, the Court held that P.R. 3-1(g)
`does not “bind a party that refers to a claim element as a ‘software
`limitation’ to later identify corresponding source code”
` But where patent owner elects to rely on code, it must cite “the
`portions of the code that satisfy relevant claim elements”
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 26 of 29 PageID #: 7968
`
`Maxell’s Reasons For Refusing To Comply With P.R. 3-1(g)
`
`1. Apple’s source code production is “incomplete”
` Red herring argument; Apple is asking Maxell to provide specific citations to
`produced source code
`2. Maxell argues that its non source code contentions are sufficiently specific
` Refuted by Court’s decision in Zixv. Echoworx
` Maxell must withdraw reliance on P.R. 3-1(g) if source code is determined
`to be unnecessary
`3. Patent Rules do not require specific / pinpoint citations
` Relies on mischaracterization of ElbitSys. v. Hughes Network
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 27 of 29 PageID #: 7969
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 27 of 29 PagelD #: 7969
`
`Patent Rule 3-1(g)
`
`P.R. 3-1(g):
`
`If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim
`
`element is a software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1
`
`for those claim elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused
`
`lnstrumentality is produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party
`claiming patent infringement shall
`identify, on an—
`- for each asserted claim.—
`
`DJ. 42 (Discovery Order) at 2,
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 28 of 29 PageID #: 7970
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 29 of 29 PageID #: 7971
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 182-1 Filed 01/14/20 Page 29 of 29 PageID #: 7971
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
