throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 9994
`
`
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO
`COMPEL LICENSING AND NEGOTIATION DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 9995
`
`
`
`Hitachi, Ltd. is not Maxell, Ltd., it is not an affiliate of Maxell, Maxell does not have
`
`control over Hitachi, and Hitachi materials are outside of the possession, custody, or control of
`
`Maxell. See D.I. 202. Apple’s renewed motion does not change any of these facts. The “new”
`
`evidence Apple offers is universally mischaracterized, taken out of the context, and/or irrelevant.
`
`And nothing changes the fact that Maxell already requested the materials sought by Apple to no
`
`avail. As this Court recognized, it is unclear “what more Maxell could do to obtain the documents
`
`requested.” Id. at 12. Apple provides no basis to revisit this Court’s prior holding.
`
`A.
`
`The MOU Does Not Provide Maxell The Ability to Obtain Documents
`
`This Court considered the MOU between Hitachi, HCE, and Maxell and rejected the notion
`
`that the MOU grants Maxell the present ability to control Hitachi documents. D.I. 202 at 7. The
`
`renewed motion addresses none of the reasons the Court provided in its prior finding on this issue.
`
`Apple asserts that Maxell’s witness testified that
`
`. It is not.
`
`The fact, though, is irrelevant. The Court did not reject that the MOU established control based on
`
`the fact
`
` it did so based on the terms of the MOU being
`
`insufficient to establish control.
`
`As the Court itself noted, the MOU provided for
`
`
`
`
`
`Maxell’s own patents (such as this litigation),
`
`
`
` Ex. A. Maxell’s licensing activities regarding
`
`demand
`
`states that
`
` This provision thus provides Maxell with no ability to
`
` here. Moreover, Apple does not address the fact that “the MOU
`
`” D.I. 202 at 10. And, while
`
`Apple points to testimony that Maxell could request that
`
`,
`
`there is no testimony that Maxell has a right to obtain such documents. Finally, while Apple
`1
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 9996
`
`
`
`complains that Maxell did not “invoke the MOU”—whatever that may mean—Apple does not
`
`deny that Maxell did request the materials from Hitachi, and Hitachi ignored the request.
`
`B. Maxell’s Business Relationships Do Not Establish Control
`
`Apple asserts the relationship between Hitachi and Maxell has not disintegrated because
`
`Maxell recently met with Hitachi personnel to discuss IP issues. Apple mischaracterizes this
`
`testimony. The discussions were about
`
` Ex. B, Kitagata Tr. at 118:8-11. Mr. Kitagata made clear
`
`. Id. at 118:2-5, 119:25-120:7. He also confirmed there was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. at 118:17-25.
`
` do not establish Maxell’s control over Hitachi
`
`any more than they give Maxell control over
`
`. Using this logic, one could argue
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. That is obviously not the case but underscores the disconnect.
`
`Moreover, the Court rejected the argument that a business partnership with a Hitachi
`
`subsidiary establishes control, noting in part that “Apple has not demonstrated that
`
`the…partnership has any relationship
`
`to
`
`the asserted patents
`
`in
`
`this case or
`
`the
`
`licensing/communication documents sought here.” D.I. 202 at 8. The same conclusion applies to
`
`the business relationship Apple raises in the renewed motion. Mot. at 3. The inventor that Apple
`
`states works with Maxell, Mr. Takizawa, is not an employee of Hitachi. He works for a subsidiary
`
`“Hitachi Industry & Control Solutions Ltd.,” or “Hi-ICS.” Ex. E, Takizawa Tr. at 10:3-10. He is
`
`not “loaned” or “seconded” to Maxell. As he testified, he is “
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 9997
`
`
`
`.” Id. at 14:9-11. And Apple offers no argument or evidence that
`
`the subcontract work bears any relationship to the asserted patents or the requested documents.
`
`There is no such relationship. See, e.g., id. at 37:8-10 (“
`
`
`
`subsidiary, unrelated to this litigation or the asserted patents, does not demonstrate an “ongoing
`
`.”). Subcontracted work by an employee of a Hitachi
`
`exchange of documents” or establish Maxell’s control over Hitachi.
`
`C.
`
`The Inventor Depositions Do Not Establish Control
`
`In its original motion, Apple argued that it “expects Hitachi to be involved in this litigation
`
`through at least making inventors of the asserted patents available for deposition.” See D.I. 202 at
`
`11. This Court held that, to the extent Maxell intends to rely on Hitachi employees to support its
`
`case, such reliance supports a finding of control, but noted there was no evidence that Hitachi
`
`assisted in making such witnesses available or would assist Maxell in any other manner. Id. at 11-
`
`12. In its renewed motion, Apple still provides no such evidence.
`
`Hitachi has not cooperated in this case or “offer[ed] its own employees for depositions.”
`
`The only inventor currently employed by Hitachi who appeared for deposition is Mr. Maeoka.1
`
`But Apple did not cite Mr. Maeoka on this issue because he testified clearly that he was not
`
`required by Hitachi to attend the deposition, but “made the decision to participate of my own
`
`volition.” Ex. F, Maeoka Tr. at 21:24-22:3; see also 22:17-21 (Q: Are you testifying today as part
`
`of your work for Hitachi? A. No. As I said earlier, this was a request to me personally, so I am
`
`participating on a personal basis. Hitachi Limited is not involved.”). Instead, Apple cites Mssrs.
`
`Takizawa and Nakano, both of whom work for subsidiary Hi-ICS. Ex. E, Takizawa Tr. at 10:3-
`
`10; Ex. G, Nakano Tr. at 9:21-24. Both made clear they did not feel obligated to attend the
`
`
`1 Mr. Katagishi is employed by Hitachi but is seconded to a subsidiary. He confirmed he did not speak to anybody
`from Hitachi about attending the deposition. Ex. H, Katagishi Tr. at 35:22-24, 37:23-38:3.
`3
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 9998
`
`
`
`deposition as part of their employment. Ex. E, Takizawa Tr. at 142:3-15; Ex. G, Nakano Tr. at
`
`29:3-7. Mr. Takizawa explicitly confirmed that nobody at Hitachi asked him attend the deposition.
`
`Ex. E, Takizawa Tr. at 16:18-20. And the business relationship underlying Hi-ICS’s decision to
`
`permit Mr. Nakano to attend deposition was the relationship between Maxell and Hi-ICS (not
`
`Hitachi). Ex. G at 37:9-20. That Maxell agreed to reimburse them for travel to the United States
`
`for depositions does not establish Hitachi involvement in the litigation or any arrangement with
`
`Hitachi related to the case.2 Not a single piece of testimony Apple cited even mentions Hitachi.
`
`Ultimately, Maxell relied on a single current Hitachi employee, with no evidence that
`
`Hitachi assisted in making him available for deposition or otherwise assisted in the case. Whereas
`
`the Court originally held that Hitachi’s anticipated involvement weighed slightly in favor of
`
`finding control, Hitachi’s actual involvement (i.e., none) weighs against such a finding.
`
`D.
`
`Potential Payment of Inventor Bonuses Does Not Establish Control
`
`Hitachi has no financial interest in this case. Pursuant to Japanese law and Maxell corporate
`
`regulations (implementing the law), inventors are compensated for filing patent applications and
`
`having inventions that contribute to product sales or royalty income. See Ex. A at Art. 4; Ex. B.
`
`Kitagata Tr. at 57:11-17, 66:23-67:5, 71:9-19. The compensation applies to all Japanese inventors
`
`regardless of their employer, not just “Hitachi employees” as Apple implies. Mot. at 4-5; Ex. B
`
`Kitagata Tr. at 63:14-23. This is confirmed by the testimony of Messrs. Oeda and Nakano, cited
`
`by Apple. Mot. at 5. While both inventors may potentially receive compensation for their
`
`inventions, neither is an employee of Hitachi. See supra at Section C. Most importantly, Apple has
`
`
`2 Maxell did not allege the inventors appeared for deposition on vacation. When asked whether Hitachi was
`permitting inventors to take time off work, Maxell’s counsel responded “I don’t know…[Y]ou can ask them if they
`are taking vacation days or if they’ve cleared this with their bosses.” Mot. at Ex. B6 (2/19/20 M&C Tr. at 31:2-8).
`4
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 9999
`
`
`
`not shown how a bonus paid directly to an inventor provides a financial interest to Hitachi.3
`
`E.
`
`Apple Has Not Shown Maxell Has Access to Hitachi Confidential Information
`
`Information that was transferred from HCE to Maxell as part of the 2013 business transfer
`
`and patent portfolio assignment, including internal file histories, are at Maxell. Far from claiming
`
`to not being permitted to view such information, Maxell produced these materials in the litigation
`
`or noted them in a privilege log as appropriate. It is this information that was discussed at the
`
`inventor deposition with a Maxell representative in the room.4 Mot. at 5.
`
`F. Maxell Has Not Misrepresented its Relationship with Hitachi
`
`Apple argues one of the inventors (Mr. Maeoka) “testified that he had to obtain Hitachi
`
`Ltd.’s approval to testify for Maxell” and “that Maxell’s counsel told him to not look for or produce
`
`his Hitachi documents.” Mot. at 5-6. Setting aside that this argument does not identify any
`
`misleading conduct, the facts as stated are inaccurate. As shown above, Mr. Maeoka participated
`
`in the deposition of his own volition, with no Hitachi involvement. With respect to his search for
`
`documents, Mr. Maeoka testified that nobody told him not to search for documents. Ex. F, Tr. at
`
`53:8-10. To the contrary, he testified that he understood he had an obligation to search for
`
`documents, but that he, personally, had no documents because “
`
`
`
`” Id. at 43:21-24; 49:21-50:7; 90:2-13, 91:4-6. This
`
`is exactly the position Maxell relayed to Apple prior to the depositions. Mot. at D2 (“
`
`
`3 Apple asserts “there is no law requiring Maxell to pay Hitachi inventors.” Mot. at 5 (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`4 Furthermore, Maxell never asserted that it could not access Hitachi documents because its employees cannot view
`Hitachi confidential information. Maxell cannot view Hitachi documents because Maxell and Hitachi are separate
`entities and Maxell has no right to Hitachi confidential information. Maxell employees (like Apple employees) are
`not permitted to view Hitachi confidential information unless such information is provided to them by Hitachi.
`5
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 10000
`
`
`
`.”). Apple seems to complain that Maxell did not encourage
`
`inventors to
`
`
`
` company materials to respond to a subpoena.5
`
`With respect to Mr. Oeda, Apple complains that he did not produce his notice regarding
`
`compensation in connection with the prior ZTE case. Mot. at 6. Mr. Oeda testified that 1) he knew
`
`he had an obligation to search for and produce documents listed in the subpoena, and 2) he
`
`performed a search but found no responsive documents. Ex. I, Oeda Tr. at 31:2-14. This aligns
`
`with Maxell’s representation that the inventors searched their files but located no responsive
`
`documents. That a potentially relevant document was identified during the deposition does not
`
`transform Maxell’s statement into a misrepresentation. Moreover, a compensation notice bears no
`
`relation to the “licensing and negotiation documents” Apple seeks in its motion. And, while Apple
`
`claims it was unable to question the witness on the issue, Apple did question Mr. Oeda about the
`
`payment received after the ZTE case. See, e.g., id. at
`
`
`
`.
`
`Apple also misstates that Maxell relies on June 2013 negotiations conducted by Mr. Matsuo
`
`while refusing to provide full discovery regarding those negotiations. Maxell produced all the
`
`documents Mr. Matsuo gave Apple in June 2013—an exchange Apple does not dispute. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. J, Excerpt of Apple Rog Response. Apple’s complaint is not actually tied to the June 2013
`
`negotiations at all. It is simply a reiteration of its request for earlier sales negotiation materials,
`
`which Maxell has confirmed it does not have and on which it is not relying (D.I. 166 at 5-6), and
`
`licenses (i.e., the very materials that are the subject of Apple’s motion).
`
`Maxell also did not falsely instruct Apple to reach Mr. Matsuo through counsel. As Maxell
`
`informed Apple, Maxell initially stated to contact Mr. Matsuo through counsel because, given
`
`
`5 Moreover, Apple knows that such information must be sought from Hitachi itself, which is why such topics were
`included in Apple’s Letters of Request for International Judicial Assistance. D.I. 146.
`6
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 10001
`
`
`
`Maxell’s prior relationship with him, he held Maxell confidential and privileged information, and
`
`Maxell believed it would have been better positioned to reach him than Apple could through
`
`traditional channels. When Apple ultimately did seek to subpoena Mr. Matsuo (on February 21,
`
`2020), Maxell agreed to reach out. Ultimately, however, Mr. Matsuo declined to have Mayer
`
`Brown accept service on his behalf and informed Maxell’s counsel that all future communications
`
`should go through his, and Hitachi’s, Japanese counsel.
`
`Apple’s argument that it waited until the final weeks of fact discovery to subpoena Mr.
`
`Matsuo based on Maxell’s instruction is an obvious attempt to excuse Apple’s own failure to
`
`conduct timely discovery. Mr. Matsuo is a non-party living in Japan, who is under no obligation
`
`to appear for deposition in the United States (as Apple demanded). If Apple had a true interest in
`
`deposing him or enforcing a subpoena, it would have had to raise the issue months earlier so that
`
`a deposition could be scheduled in Japan during fact discovery.
`
`G. Maxell Should Not Be Precluded From Using All Hitachi Discovery
`
`The bounds of Apple’s request that Maxell be precluded from relying on evidence from
`
`Hitachi are not clear. If it is intended to cover materials received from Hitachi during the pendency
`
`of this case (not including inventor testimony), Maxell does not oppose as it is unable to obtain
`
`any such material either. If it is intended to cover materials conveyed from Hitachi to HCE and
`
`then to Maxell (all of which were produced by Maxell in this case), there is no basis for the
`
`sanction. Maxell has not selectively responded to any request or otherwise used Hitachi materials
`
`as a sword and a shield. Rather, as stated now countless times, Maxell provided all relevant
`
`information in its possession, custody, or control. Finally, there is also no basis to prohibit Maxell
`
`from using any discovery that Apple may timely elicit from third-parties, Hitachi or its employees.
`
`Maxell has not opposed or otherwise attempted to impede Apple’s ability to procure any such
`
`discovery, and thus there would be no basis on which to prevent Maxell from using such discovery.
`7
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 10002
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 15, 2020
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`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
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 281 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10003
`
`
`
`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 15th day of April 2020, with a copy of this document via
`electronic mail.
`
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

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