throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 10045
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 10045
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 42 PageID #: 10046
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`No. 5:19CV36-RWS
`SEALED
`
`§§
`



`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`
`V.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`The following motion has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
`
`for decision in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636:
`
`Maxell, Ltd.’s Opposed Motion to Compel (Docket Entry # 197).
`
`The Court, having carefully considered the relevant briefing, is of the opinion the motion should be
`
`GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Apple’s request for costs and fees is denied.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (“Maxell”) filed its complaint for patent infringement against Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) on March 15, 2019. The First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“FAC”)
`
`alleges Apple infringes ten patents related to mobile device technology under theories of direct
`
`infringement, induced infringement, willful infringement, and contributory infringement. Docket
`
`Entry # 111. Maxell alleges that various aspects of Apple’s iPhone, iPad and Mac products infringe
`
`the asserted patents, including: cameras; navigation capabilities; authentication systems;
`
`telecommunications techniques; video streaming; “do not disturb” functionality; power management
`
`technologies; and smartwatch integration. See Docket Entry # 171 at p. 1.
`
`The FAC alleges that since at least June 2013, Apple has been aware of Maxell’s patents and
`
`has had “numerous meetings and interactions regarding its infringement of these patents.” Docket
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 42 PageID #: 10047
`
`Entry # 111, ¶ 5. According to the FAC, these meetings included Apple’s representatives being
`
`provided with detailed information regarding Maxell’s patents, the developed technology, and
`
`“Apple’s ongoing use of the patented technology.” Id. The FAC alleges Maxell believed the parties
`
`“could reach a mutually beneficial solution and to that end considered a potential business
`
`transaction and continued to answer multiple inquiries from Apple over the course of several years,
`
`including communicating with Apple as recently as late 2018.” Id. Maxell alleges Apple elected not
`
`to enter into an agreement and did not license Maxell’s patents; rather, Apples continued, and
`
`continues today, to make, use, sell, and offer for sale Maxell’s patented technology without license.
`
`Id. For each patent, the FAC further states “Apple will thus have known and intended (since
`
`receiving such notice) that its continued actions would actively induce and contribute to actual
`
`infringement” of certain claims of each patent. See, e.g., id., ¶¶ 30, 44, 59, 72, 89, 102, 115, 132,
`
`145, 160.
`
`On March 16, 2020, District Judge Schroeder entered an order extending the deadline to
`
`complete all fact depositions to April 21, 2020 and the deadline for initial expert reports to April 28,
`
`2020. Docket Entry # 232. The dispositive motions deadline is currently June 30, 2020, and jury
`
`selection and trial are scheduled October 26, 2020. Id.
`
`II. MAXELL’S MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`Maxell filed its opposed motion to compel on February 14, 2020, requesting the Court order
`
`Apple to 1) produce all relevant technical documents related to the accused features and
`
`functionalities of the accused products, 2) produce all non-source code documents made available
`
`on the source code computers, 3) provide a fulsome response to Maxell Interrogatory No. 9, 4)
`
`produce the eleven additional license agreements requested by Maxell, 5) produce all relevant buyer
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 4 of 42 PageID #: 10048
`
`surveys, owner surveys, and owner studies, and 6) produce the prior litigation documents requested
`
`by Maxell.
`
`Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Apple filed an expedited “preliminary response” on
`
`February 20, 2020. Docket Entry # 199. District Judge Schroeder referred the motion to the
`
`undersigned on February 26, 2020. Two days later, Apple filed its response to Maxell’s motion to
`
`compel, combining its preliminary response and the “present supplement in a single document.”
`
`Docket Entry # 205 at n. 1.
`
`Maxell filed its opposed motion for sanctions on March 5, 2020, wherein it requests the
`
`Court preclude Apple from using the discovery it failed to timely produce, including discovery
`
`produced after January 31, 2020; deem certain accused products/components and source code to be
`
`representative of all versions of that product as detailed in the chart contained in the motion; and
`
`assess monetary sanctions. Docket Entry # 210 at p. 1. According to Maxell, in the final stages of
`
`discovery, it is “having to work through documents and source code that continue to be produced
`
`instead of preparing for depositions and expert reports.”1 Id. (emphasis in original).
`
`Noting it is not clear from the motion for sanctions which documents addressed in Maxell’s
`
`motion to compel are still at issue, in its March 19, 2020 Order Denying Hearing on Motion to
`
`Compel and Reserving Ruling on Motion for Sanctions to Later Date, the Court ordered Maxell to
`
`file a reply to Apple’s response to Maxell’s motion to compel, clearly setting forth the documents
`
`still at issue. Docket Entry # 236 at pp. 2, 5. On March 26, 2020, Maxell filed its reply as ordered.
`
`1 Both parties have informed the Court they believe a hearing would be helpful to the resolution of the motion
`for sanctions. Maxell requests the Court hold a telephonic hearing. Given the seriousness of the relief requested in the
`motion for sanctions, Apple requests that motion be heard by the Court in person. The Court has previously indicated
`its agreement with Apple that, to the extent warranted after a review of all of the relevant briefing, an in-person hearing
`could be scheduled later in the case without impacting the overall case schedule and without any prejudice to Maxell.
`See Docket Entry # 236 at p. 5. As this time, the Court intends to schedule an in-person hearing when safe to do so.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 5 of 42 PageID #: 10049
`
`Docket Entry # 244. Apple filed a surreply on March 31, 2020. Docket Entry # 258.
`
`According to Maxell’s April 6, 2020 “Report Regarding Maxell Ltd.’s Motion to Compel”
`
`(“supplemental report”), which the Court received as it was preparing to enter this order, Maxell and
`
`Apple held an additional meet and confer on April 2 to discuss the status of each issue raised in
`
`Maxell’s motion and were able to resolve some of the issues raised therein. Docket Entry # 266.
`
`Apple filed its “Responsive Report” on April 7, 2020, addressing the status of certain issues which
`
`Apple asserts Maxell “mischaracterized” in its report. Docket Entry # 268. On April 8, Maxell filed
`
`a supplement to its supplemental report. Docket Entry # 270.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING DISCOVERY
`
`“The goal of discovery is to maximize relevant, nonprivileged matter while avoiding excess,
`
`non-relevant or privileged information.” Drake v. Capital One, National Association, No. 4:16-CV-
`
`00497, 2017 WL 1319560, at *1 (E.D. Tex. April 10, 2017). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)
`
`provides that the permissible scope of discovery includes “any nonprivileged matter that
`
`is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
`
`importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access
`
`to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
`
`issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
`
`discoverable.” Matter of AET, Inc., Ltd., No. 1:10-CV-51, 2018 WL 4201264, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June
`
`8, 2018) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1)).
`
`The Court’s Discovery Order for Patent Cases requires the parties, without waiting discovery
`
`requests, “produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored information, and
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 6 of 42 PageID #: 10050
`
`tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to the pleaded
`
`claims or defenses involved in this action, except to the extent these disclosures are affected by the
`
`time limits set forth in the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas.”2 Docket Entry # 42 at pp.
`
`2-3. Here, the Initial and Additional Disclosures deadline was July 10, 2019. Docket Entry # 46 at
`
`p. 8.
`
`In the Eastern District of Texas, Local Rule CV-26 also provides guidance in considering
`
`whether information is relevant for discovery. The rule provides information is relevant if:
`
`(1) it includes information that would not support the disclosing parties’ contentions;
`
`(2) it includes those persons who, if their potential testimony were known, might
`reasonably be expected to be deposed or called as a witness by any of the parties;
`
`(3) it is information that is likely to have an influence on or affect the outcome of a
`claim or defense;
`
`(4) it is information that deserves to be considered in the preparation, evaluation or
`trial of a claim or defense; and
`
`(5) it is information that reasonable and competent counsel would consider
`reasonably necessary to prepare, evaluate, or try a claim or defense.
`
`Matter of AET, 2018 WL 4201264, at *2 (quoting E.D. Tex. Civ. R. CV-26(d)). Relevance “has been
`
`construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other
`
`matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Matter of AET, 2018 WL
`
`4201264, at *2 (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)
`
`(citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947))). Nonetheless, “Rule 26 vests the trial judge
`
`2 After disclosure is made pursuant to the Discovery Order for Patent Cases, each party is under a duty to
`supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information on the basis of which it knows that the
`information disclosed was either incomplete or incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true. Docket Entry #
`42 at p. 6.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 7 of 42 PageID #: 10051
`
`with broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly.” Matter of AET, 2018 WL 4201264, at *2
`
`(quoting Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998)).
`
`In addition to being relevant, discovery must be proportional. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`26(b) has been amended, effective December 1, 2015. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Yang Kun Chung,
`
`321 F.R.D. 250, 284 (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2017) (“Samsung II”). “Under Rule 26(b)(1), [as amended,]
`
`discoverable matter must be both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case which are
`
`related but distinct requirements.”3 Id. at 279. The burden is on the party resisting discovery to
`
`establish the discovery is not proportional. KAIST IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No.
`
`2:16-CV-01314-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 9937760, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017) (citing Samsung
`
`Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Yang Kun Chung, No. 3:15-CV-4108-D, 2017 WL 896897, at *11 (N.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 7, 2017) (“Samsung I”)); see also Samsung II, 321 F.R.D. at 284 (explaining the amendments
`
`to Rule 26 do not alter the burdens imposed on the party resisting discovery).
`
`“[J]ust as was the case before the December 1, 2015 amendments, under Rules 26(b)(1) and
`
`26(b)(2)(C)(iii), a court can and must
`
`limit proposed discovery that it determines is not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
`
`the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources,
`
`the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
`
`proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit
`
`and the court must do so even in the absence of a
`
`motion.” Samsung II, 321 F.R.D. at 284 (citing Crosby v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d
`
`3 The 2015 amendments to Rule 26 deleted “from the definition of relevance information that appears ‘reasonably
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ because ‘[t]he phrase has been used by some, incorrectly, to
`define the scope of discovery’ and ‘has continued to create problems’ given its ability to ‘swallow any other limitation
`on the scope of discovery.’” Robroy Indus. Tex., LLC v. Thomas & Betts Corp., No. 2:15-CV-512-WCB, 2017 WL
`319064, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2017) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 26, 2015 comm. note).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 8 of 42 PageID #: 10052
`
`258, 264 (5th Cir. 2011)). Thus, as amended, Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that, “[o]n motion or on its
`
`own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or
`
`by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
`
`or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
`
`expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by
`
`discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule
`
`26(b)(1).” Samsung II, 321 F.R.D. at 284 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)).
`
`Rule 26(c) further provides that the court “may, for good cause,” protect a party from “undue
`
`burden or expense” by issuing an order forbidding the disclosure or discovery of certain matters,
`
`specifying terms for the disclosure or discovery, or limiting the scope of disclosure or
`
`discovery. Matter of AET, 2018 WL 4201264, at *2 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(D)).
`
`Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a discovering party, on notice to other
`
`parties and all affected persons, to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Star
`
`Creek Ctr., LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00607, 2018 WL 1934084, at *1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Apr. 23, 2018) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1)). The moving party bears the burden of showing that
`
`the materials and information sought are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Star Creek, 2018 WL 1934084, at *1 (citing Export Worldwide, Ltd. v. Knight,
`
`241 F.R.D. 259, 263 (W.D. Tex. 2006)). Once the moving party establishes the materials requested
`
`are within the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to
`
`show why the discovery is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome or oppressive, and thus
`
`should not be permitted. Id.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 9 of 42 PageID #: 10053
`
`“The party seeking discovery, to prevail on a motion to compel, may well need to make its
`
`own showing of many or all of the proportionality factors, including the importance of the issues at
`
`stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information,
`
`the parties’ resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, in opposition to
`
`the resisting party’s showing.” Samsung II, 321 F.R.D. at 284. But Rule 26(b)(1) “‘does not place
`
`on the party seeking discovery the burden of addressing all proportionality considerations.’”
`
`Samsung I, 325 F.R.D. at 595 (quoting Carr v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 312 F.R.D. 459,
`
`467 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 26, 2015 comm. note)).
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Maxell’s motion to compel
`
`Parties’ assertions
`
`In its prior motion to compel filed August 15, 2019, Maxell expressed concerns about
`
`Apple’s delayed document production, noting Apple could wait until the “final days of discovery to
`
`provide relevant, responsive information.” Docket Entry # 56 at p. 2. Maxell asked the Court to
`
`compel Apple to “substantially complete its document production.” Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2019 WL 7905454, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2019). Apple represented to
`
`the Court it was complying with the Court’s Discovery Order for Patent Cases, having already
`
`produced documents in at least five batches. Id. at *2.
`
`On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
`
`Maxell’s motion to compel document production and responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-9. See
`
`Docket Entry # 126. The Court denied Maxell’s motion to compel document production, stating the
`
`order did not reduce or eliminate Apple’s obligation to “produce or permit the inspection of all
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 10 of 42 PageID #: 10054
`
`documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things in [its] possession, custody, or
`
`control that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action.” Maxell Ltd., 2019
`
`WL 7905454, at *2. Noting Maxell’s broad allegations necessarily contemplate extensive discovery
`
`and document production, the Court noted Apple’s inability to complete document production by
`
`the “Additional Disclosures” deadline was understandable. Id. Further noting the parties agreed
`
`document production was still ongoing, the Court stated it could not determine at that time whether
`
`Apple had met its discovery obligations to date. Id. The Court stated it expected Apple to
`
`substantially complete all discovery by November 27, 2019, as agreed by Apple. Id.
`
`In its current motion to compel filed February 14, 2020, Maxell asserts its prior concerns
`
`regarding Apple’s delayed document production “have sadly come true.” Docket Entry # 197 at p.
`
`1. Maxell asserts Apple initially produced “the bare minimum” regarding the operation of the
`
`accused functionalities, “relying primarily on a limited source code production.” Id. According to
`
`Maxell, a review of Apple’s productions, source code, and publicly available information indicates
`
`there are relevant technical documents that had not been produced. Id. at p. 2. Maxell further asserts
`
`Apple improperly produced over one thousand non-source code documents on source code
`
`computers, improperly restricting Maxell’s ability to access, review, and use such materials. Id. at
`
`p. 4. Maxell also raises various issues with Apple’s production of non-technical documents (forecast
`
`documents, licenses, marketing surveys, and prior litigation documents). Id. at pp. 6-7. According
`
`to Maxell, Apple treats the Court’s meet and confer requirement “much as it has the rest of its
`
`discovery obligations, with a refusal to comply.”4 Id. at p. 2.
`
`4 For example, Maxell states it made a written request on January 27, 2020 for Apple to produce eleven
`additional relevant licenses; on January 31, 2020, Apple stated Maxell had not supported its assertion of relevance and
`requested additional information, which Maxell provided the following day “along with a request to meet and confer.”
`Maxell claims Apple should have met and conferred and provided Maxell a final position by February 10, but on
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 11 of 42 PageID #: 10055
`
`In its response, Apple states Maxell did not properly meet and confer on each purported
`
`dispute raised. According to Apple, Apple was investigating and has now produced the majority of
`
`the documents addressed in Maxell’s motion. For those issues the parties properly discussed, Apple
`
`represents it had already provided or was in the process of providing, or for those that Maxell never
`
`specifically requested before filing its motion, “Apple will nonetheless be producing.” Docket Entry
`
`# 205 at p. 1. Apple requests costs and sanctions, asserting Maxell “rush[ed] to court without
`
`meeting-and-conferring” and its “motion paints a picture that Apple has intentionally withheld
`
`documents by mischaracterizing or misrepresenting certain documents.” Id. at p. 7.
`
`In its reply, Maxell contends the majority of the issues raised in the motion to compel have
`
`not been resolved. Docket Entry # 244 at p. 1. Maxell explains “Apple’s representation of resolution
`
`more often than not results from an overly-narrow view of the deficiencies (an issue that Maxell has
`
`repeatedly highlighted to Apple).” Id. As one example, Maxell asserts, with respect to schematics,
`
`the “deficiency was two-fold: 1) Apple failed to produce any schematics for 29 accused products,
`
`and 2) Apple failed to produce complete schematics for many other products.” Id. (emphasis in
`
`original). According to Maxell, “Apple’s response only addressed the missing 29 schematics while
`
`ignoring Maxell’s request for complete schematics for the other products.” Id. For other alleged
`
`deficiencies raised, Maxell asserts Apple similarly limited its responsive production, and response
`
`to the motion, to the specific examples called out by Maxell and ignored the categories in full. Id.
`
`Maxell’s reply sets forth in detail the alleged continuing deficiencies in Apple’s production of
`
`technical documents and non-technical documents, as well as the continuing issues with Apple’s
`
`production of non-source code documents on source code computers.
`
`February 13, “Apple stated that it was looking into the issue, providing no detail about what it would provide (or not),
`and put off a meet and confer until its ‘investigation’ was complete.” Docket Entry # 197 at pp. 1-2.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 12 of 42 PageID #: 10056
`
`Apple asserts Maxell “abuses the Court’s invitation to identify on reply which issues from
`
`its original motion
`
` are still outstanding by manufacturing new ‘disputes’ it hasn’t bothered to
`
`properly discuss with Apple before filing this motion.” Docket Entry # 258 at p. 1. According to
`
`Apple, “[e]very time Maxell cannot find a document in Apple’s production, Maxell declares it
`
`‘missing,’” and “every time Apples questions whether a document is within the scope of discovery,
`
`Maxell says Apple is ‘withholding’ it.” Id. Apple contends most, if not all, of these “disputes” could
`
`have been resolved if Maxell “simply asked Apple to investigate them specifically.” Id.
`
`The Court addresses each specific “dispute” below, starting with the alleged deficiencies in
`
`Apple’s production of technical documents. The Court notes it has also reviewed the briefing related
`
`to Maxell’s motion for sanctions, including the Declaration of Saqib J. Siddiqui in Support of
`
`Maxell, Ltd.’s Reply in Support of Opposed Motion for Sanctions (“Siddiqui Decl.”). See Docket
`
`Entry # 241-1. In that declaration, Maxell provides an index of productions made by Apple after
`
`November 27, 2019 through March 24, 2020 (totaling 7,370 documents and 360,539 pages).5
`
`Siddiqui Decl., ¶ 15.
`
`2.
`
`Alleged deficiencies in Apple’s production of technical documents
`
`Complete Schematics
`
`Apple represents in its response that it had already produced schematics covering most of the
`
`120+ accused products (including schematics labeled with the model numbers that Maxell alleged
`
`to be missing), and has not intentionally withheld any. Docket Entry # 205 at p. 1. In its reply,
`
`5 Prior to the filing of Maxell’s current motion to compel, Apple made two productions of marketing surveys
`and reports (totaling thirty-five documents) in December 2019, three productions of documents (totaling 618 documents)
`in January 2020, and two productions of documents (totaling 3,643 documents) in early February 2020. Siddiqui Decl.,
`¶ 15. The remaining 3,074 documents were produced by Apple following the filing of Maxell’s current motion to compel.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 13 of 42 PageID #: 10057
`
`Maxell asserts, based on the model numbers Apple has provided and without clarification from
`
`Apple as to whether certain of the alleged missing schematics have now been produced, schematics
`
`are still missing for
`
` According to Apple’s surreply, Maxell did not identify any
`
`missing schematics for Apple to clarify until Maxell’s motion to compel. Docket Entry # 258 at p.
`
`2. Nevertheless, Apple represents in its surreply it “has produced all requested schematics and, where
`
`needed, identified for Maxell bates numbers of requested schematics.” Id.
`
`In its reply, Maxell further asserts Apple has failed to produce complete schematics for each
`
`product (including, e.g., schematics that show the camera block and SOC).
`
` According
`
`to Apple’s surreply, the
`
` schematics cited in Maxell’s original motion were produced
`
`in August 2019. See, e.g., Docket Entry # 258, Ex. M, APL-MAXELL_00596752 (labeled as
`
`and showing camera and SOC). Again, Apple has represented it has produced all requested
`
`schematics and, where needed, identified for Maxell bates numbers of requested schematics. Docket
`
`Entry # 258 at p. 2.
`
`In its supplemental report, Maxell asserts the request for schematics was “resolved by 3/31/20
`
`letter linking produced schematics to accused products,” but the request for block diagrams remains
`
`unresolved. Docket Entry # 266 at p. 1. In its responsive report, Apple again asserts it “performed
`
`a reasonable search for such diagrams consistent with the Discovery Order in this case and has
`
`produced the results.” Docket Entry # 268 at p. 2. To the extent Apple has not already produced all
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 14 of 42 PageID #: 10058
`Case 5:19-cv-OOO36-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 14 of 42 PagelD #: 10058
`
`requested and complete schematics as represented, it shall do so immediately. Otherwise, this part
`
`of Maxell’s motion is denied.
`
`Documents Describing Cellular Fun ctionalities
`
`According to Maxell, throughout this case, Apple has represented the cellular functionalities
`
`ofthe accused products are implemented by Qualcomm and Intel components and the only relevant
`
`documents were datashccts that Apple already produced. Pointing out Apple recently produced
`
`proprietary Apple documents that describe cellular funetionalities, Maxell contends Apple’s
`
`production proves that relevant, responsive documents exist at Apple.6 Docket Entry # 244 at p. 4
`
`(citing Siddiqui Dccl., 111] 23-25). Maxell asserts Apple has not produced these materials for all
`
`relevant products/components. For example, Apple produced—
`
`nonnoonoonoonooo Anon—
`
`Maxell further asserts Apple produced in March 2020 design specifications for some Apple
`
`— swoon Don t
`
`Aooonong no Man, the
`
`design specifications themselves refer to additional documents and repositories for documents
`
`describing relevant cellular funetionalities,—
`
`
`
`" In his declaration, Siddiqui states Maxell requested documents relating to‘— in
`the accused products, and explained that, because the fimctionality implicates multiple components, documents relating
`to such functionali
`could not exist solel with A le‘s com nent su
`liers.” Siddi ui Decl.,
`23. Accordin to
`
`the lack of documents relevant to
`
`In December 2019, Maxell a ain raised
`
`nse to Maxell’s motion to com e], A
`
`On March 6, 2020, followin the filin of its res
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 15 of 42 PageID #: 10059
`
`at p. 5 (citing Siddiqui Decl., ¶ 26). Maxell states Apple began producing such materials on March
`
`25, 2020, but further states it is unclear whether the production is complete.
`
`Similarly, Maxell asserts documents Apple produced cite to similar design specifications for
`
` Docket Entry # 244
`
`full versions of which have also not been produced. According to Maxell, “it is apparent Apple has
`
`not searched for and produced documents discussing
`
` either,” all of which are “extremely relevant functionality for this case and at least the
`
`asserted ’193 patent.” Docket Entry # 244 at p. 5.
`
`In connection with this topic, Maxell also raised the fact that many specifications produced
`
`by Apple are incomplete or short versions. Maxell states it subpoenaed Broadcom in an attempt to
`
`obtain complete datasheets for Broadcom and Avago components, but Avago’s outside counsel
`
`conveyed to Maxell on February 25, 2020 that:
`
`Apple reached out to us four weeks ago [e.g., January 28, 2020] requesting
`permission to produce the data sheets/technical specifications for the Broadcom
`products identified in your subpoena, which we gave them. So we are assuming that
`Apple has (or will) produce the relevant documents. Please let us know if that is
`incorrect.
`
`Docket Entry # 244 at p. 6 (citing Ex. H (2/25/20 E-mail from Bohmann to Culbertson)). Although
`
`Apple produced complete
`
` on
`
`March 18, 2020, see Siddiqui Decl., ¶ 27, Maxell states it continues to await production of complete
`
`versions of many such datasheets.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 16 of 42 PageID #: 10060
`
`In its surreply, Apple states it accurately represented that the
`
`functionality in Maxell’s asserted claims is found only in third-party documents, including from Intel
`
`and Qualcomm. Docket Entry # 258 at pp. 2-3.
`
`“similar” to Intel documents is based on the unsubstantiated belief that documents for one vendor
`
` Apple argues Maxell’s request for Qualcomm documents
`
`must exist for other vendors. Id.
`
`Regarding Maxell’s complaint about
`
` for
`
`Apple asserts both projects have been discontinued for years and Apple merely questioned their
`
`relevance to this case, which Maxell mischaracterizes as Apple “withholding discovery . . . based
`
`on relevancy.” Id. According to Apple’s surreply, “Maxell ignores that Apple told Maxell that the
`
` and Apple has already produced
`
`the relevant source code for the chipsets used in both
`
`a fact that Maxell
`
`would have realized if it diligently reviewed Apple’s production.” Id.
`
`In its supplemental report, Maxell claims the
`
` and documents cited
`
` design specifications issues remain unresolved, whereas the design specifications
`
` issue is resolved by Apple’s March 31, 2020 production. Docket
`
`in the
`
`for the
`
`Entry # 266 at p. 1. Regarding the requested design specifications for Qualcomm transceivers,
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 17 of 42 PageID #: 10061
`
`Maxell asserts the issue is resolved subject to Apple’s agreement to perform an additional search for
`
`and/or provide clarification regarding these documents. Id. at pp. 1-2.
`
`In Apple’s responsive report, Apple notes all the items were raised for the first time in
`
`Maxell’s reply and again represents it has produced the
`
` it located after a
`
`reasonable search. Docket Entry # 268 at p. 2. Regarding design specifications for
`
` Apple
`
`represents it will perform an additional search for and/or provide clarification regarding these
`
`documents. Id. To the extent any such documents are located after this additional search, Apple shall
`
`produce such documents (or provide clarification regarding the requested Qualcomm documents)
`
`within ten days from the date of entry of this order. Otherwise, this part of Maxell’s motion is
`
`denied.
`
`The Court considers below the remaining issue of whether Apple should be ordered to search
`
`for and produce different versions of every single specification/datasheet from
`
`, and camera suppliers such as
`
`and
`
`Skyworks Code
`
`Maxell’s motion noted a datasheet produced by third-party Skyworks for its
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 18 of 42 PageID #: 10062
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 288-1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 18 of 42 PageID #: 10062
`
`In its response, Apple represented it “has already produced or made available for inspection
`
`all Skyworks related material, including computer files, that is was able to locate.” Docket Entry #
`
`205 at p. 2. Maxell agrees in its reply (and supplemental report) the dispute regarding Skyworks
`
`source code is resolved. However, Maxell asserts other Skyworks documentation remains missing
`
`from Apple’s production, including complete (not partial or redacted) Skyworks datasheets and
`
`Engineering Requirements Specifications.7 Docket Entry # 244 at p. 7.
`
`In its surreply, Apple states it has conducted a further investigation in response to Maxell’s
`
`request and, to the extent additional documents were located, those too have been produced in the
`
`March 25, 2020 production. Docket Entry # 258

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