Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 19350
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NO INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,748,317, 6,580,999, AND 6,430,498
`IN VIEW OF THE NAVTALK ALLEGED PRIOR ART
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 19351
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 2
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ...................................................................... 3
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE ................................ 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 19352
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Carella v. Starlight Archery,
`804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986)................................................................................................2, 5
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc.,
`560 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................3
`
`Couch v. Howell,
`49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 595 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 1941), aff’d, 127 F.2d 975, 53
`U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 531 (5th Cir. 1942) .........................................................................................5
`
`Eason v. Thaler,
`73 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................2
`
`In re Ekenstam,
`256 F.2d 321 (CCPA 1958) .......................................................................................................9
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Commission,
`180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................3
`
`Forsyth v. Barr,
`19 F.3d 1527 (5th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Gandy v. Main Belting Co.,
`143 U.S. 587 (1892) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986)................................................................................................2, 5
`
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003) .....................................................................................3
`
`Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 728 (Fed. Cir. 2002)....................................................................................................3
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership,
`131 S. Ct. 2238, 564 U.S. 91 (2011) ..........................................................................................2
`ii
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 19353
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.,
`303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..............................................................................................2, 5
`
`Navico Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00190-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139806 ..............................10
`
`Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co.,
`136 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 1998) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp.,
`28 F.3d 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994)....................................................................................................6
`
`Zimmer Tech. Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.,
`476 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (N.D. Ind. 2007) .....................................................................................3
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................................5, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ................................................................................................................................2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 19354
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Excerpts from the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Joseph A.
`Paradiso Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317,
`6,580,999, and 6,430,498 (May 7, 2020)
`
`Expert Report of Robert L. Stoll (June 4, 2020)
`
`Declaration of David Ayres (March 24, 2020)
`
`Deposition Transcript of L. Kent Broddle (April 17, 2020)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 19355
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Clear and convincing is a high burden to meet. It is this burden that Apple must meet to
`
`establish that the Garmin manufactured “NavTalk” device was publicly sold in the U.S. twenty
`
`years ago. Instead of meeting this standard, Apple’s expert relies on Declaration of a Garmin
`
`employee who joined Garmin seven years after the occurrences of the alleged sales and who
`
`
`
`
`
`. While the Declaration of the Garmin employee
`
`included various exhibits, even when considered in totality, the facts simply demonstrate that
`
`Apple has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the specific NavTalk device was
`
`known/used/sold two decades ago with the specific NavTalk User Manual because the evidence
`
`included inconsistent information and/or were created in 2013 or 2019.
`
`This failing is fatal to Apple’s invalidity analysis. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule CV-56, Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. moves for partial summary
`
`judgment of no invalidity in view of the devices and documents collectively referred to by Dr.
`
`Joseph A. Paradiso (Dr. Paradiso) as “NavTalk” (Ex. 1, Paradiso Rep. at ¶ 132) on the basis that
`
`such devices and documents do not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Apple asserted
`
`that NavTalk qualifies as prior art against U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317 (the ’317 patent),
`
`6,580,999 (the ’999 patent), and 6,430,498 (the ’498 patent) (together, “Maxell’s walking
`
`navigation patents”). But there is no factual dispute that Apple did not show by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that the “NavTalk” device that Apple relies on is in fact prior art to
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 19356
`
`
`Maxell’s walking navigation patents. Accordingly, partial summary judgment of no invalidity of
`
`Maxell’s walking navigation patents over the NavTalk is warranted.1
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment shall be rendered when there is no genuine issue as to any material
`
`fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986); Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136
`
`F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). Mere conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions,
`
`improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are not competent summary judgment
`
`evidence. See Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322, 1325 (5th Cir. 1996); Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d
`
`1527, 1533 (5th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment must be granted if the nonmoving party fails to
`
`make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its case and on
`
`which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.
`
`An issued patent enjoys a presumption of validity. See 35 U.S.C. § 282. This presumption
`
`places the burden on the challenging party to prove the patent’s invalidity by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242, 564
`
`U.S. 91, 95 (2011). This standard applies to all “[f]acts establishing anticipation or underlying a
`
`determination of obviousness.” Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`Whether evidence qualifies as prior art is a legal determination based on underlying factual
`
`findings. See Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002); In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, in the absence of clear and
`
`convincing evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude that a given product or
`
`publication qualifies as prior art, the Court should grant summary judgment of no anticipation or
`
`1 Maxell also disputes that this prior art—as well as the remainder of Apple’s prior art—teach every limitation of
`Maxell’s walking navigation patents’ claims. Maxell is moving for summary judgment on the issue of public
`availability in order to focus the Court on the most clear-cut issues.
`2
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 19357
`
`
`obviousness. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Hilgraeve,
`
`Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964, 973-76 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (granting summary
`
`judgment of no invalidity where the defendant “failed to adduce evidence” of the relevant date
`
`for purposes of § 102(a)).
`
`“When the asserted basis of invalidity is prior public use, the party with the burden of
`
`proof must show that the subject of the barring activity met each of the limitations of the claim,
`
`and thus was an embodiment of the claimed invention.” Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`
`292 F.3d 728, 737 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The challenger must create a record that shows “by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that the claimed invention was in public use before the patent’s critical
`
`date.” Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc., 560 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The party
`
`challenging a patent on the basis of prior knowledge or prior public use must present sufficient
`
`corroborating evidence to support a finding of invalidity. Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade
`
`Commission, 180 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “[C]orroboration is required of any witness
`
`whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent, regardless of his or her level of
`
`interest.” Id. at 1369. If a party relies on a product as prior art, it must show that the relied-upon
`
`product qualifies as “prior art.” See, e.g., Zimmer Tech. Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 476
`
`F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1045 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (granting summary judgment that physical product does
`
`not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102).
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`
`
`The following facts are undisputed:
`
`1.
`
`The priority date of Maxell’s walking navigation patents is July 12, 1999. See Ex.
`
`1, Paradiso Rep. at ¶ 116.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Paradiso is Apple’s technical expert who provides opinions with respect to the
`
`invalidity of the walking navigation patents. See Ex. 1, Paradiso Rep. at ¶ 2.
`3
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 19358
`
`
`3.
`
`Apple asserts that Maxell’s walking navigation patents are rendered obvious in
`
`view of the Garmin Navtalk device that Apple claims was “reduced to practice by no later than
`
`January 31, 1999” and allegedly “went on sale to the public in January 1999 (“NavTalk”). Ex. 1,
`
`Paradiso Rep. at ¶¶ 132-133.
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Ayres is a Garmin employee who started working for Garmin in 2006. Ex. 3,
`
`Ayres Decl.
`
`5.
`
`Mr. Broddle is a former Garmin engineer who
`
`Broddle Dep. Tr. at 121:14-122:16.
`
`6.
`
`Apple’s counsel represented that
`
`7.
`
`. Ex. 4, Broddle Dep. Tr. at 257:14-22.
`
`
`
` Ex. 4,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The declaration of Mr. Ayres does not mention the date of
`
`. Ex. 3,
`
` Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 167.
`
`Ayres Decl.
`
`9.
`
`The declaration of Mr. Ayres does not include any statement about the specific
`
`NavTalk device at APL-MAXELL_P01. Ex. 3, Ayres Decl.
`
`10.
`
`Apple did not produce
`
`. Ex. 4, Broddle Dep. Tr. at 217:4-221:24.
`
`11.
`
`The sales record accompanying the declaration of Mr. Ayres
`
` Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 173.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 19359
`
`
`12.
`
`The Bill of Materials accompanying the declaration of Mr. Ayres is a spreadsheet
`
`that
`
`. Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 179.
`
`13.
`
`During his deposition, Mr. Broddle testified that
`
`
`
`. Ex. 4,
`
`Broddle Dep. Tr. 187:15-24.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE
`
`1.
`
`Whether Apple has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`NavTalk qualifies as prior art against Maxell’s walking navigation patents under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Maxell’s walking navigation patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317,
`
`6,580,999, and 6,430,498—are not invalid based on NavTalk.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`To qualify as prior art, a printed publication must have been available to the relevant
`
`public before the patent’s priority date. 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-AIA). Hardware devices must have
`
`been known, used publicly, or been on sale in this country before the patent’s priority date. Id.
`
`Furthermore, this prior invention must not have been abandoned, suppressed, or concealed. Id. §
`
`102(g)(2). Whether a piece of art satisfies any one of these standards is a distinct legal
`
`determination based on distinct underlying factual issues. See Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 303
`
`F.3d at 1301; In re Hall, 781 F.2d at 899.
`
`When considering hardware and devices as prior art, “[t]he statutory language ‘known or
`
`used by others in this country’ [in Pre-AIA 102(a)] means knowledge or use which is accessible
`
`to the public.” Carella, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644. To anticipate, prior use cannot be secret,
`
`but must be sufficiently well known that the public acquired or had the opportunity to acquire
`
`therefrom such knowledge as would enable one skilled in art to practice the invention. Couch v.
`5
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 19360
`
`
`Howell, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 595 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 1941), aff'd, 127 F.2d 975, 53 U.S.P.Q.
`
`(BNA) 531 (5th Cir. 1942). The policies underlying the public use bar inform its scope:
`
`“discouraging the removal, from the public domain, of inventions that the public reasonably has
`
`come to believe are freely available.” Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1198 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994).
`
`Dr. Paradiso has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to support his
`
`conclusion that the NavTalk handheld electronic navigation device and accompanying user
`
`manual was in public use or on public sale in the United States on or before July 12, 1999. See
`
`Ex. 1, Paradiso Rep. at ¶ 132, Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶¶ 157-95.
`
`In fact, the evidence is unreliable and defective. Dr. Paradiso’s opinions are not based on
`
`any personal knowledge, but are instead based on the declaration of David Ayres and documents
`
`produced by Garmin. See Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶¶ 157-60. And Mr. Ayres’ opinions contained in
`
`his declaration are also not his own, but instead
`
`
`
`.
`
`See Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 165; Ex. 4, Broddle Dep. Tr. at 210:14-211:1. And to add yet another
`
`layer of unreliability, as Apple’s counsel acknowledged and explained,
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. (citing Ex. 4, Broddle Dep. Tr. at 257:14-22). This
`
`evidence is hearsay and not the “clear” and convincing reliable evidence that is necessary to
`
`establish that a device was publically known, used, or on sale on or before the critical date.
`
`What is more troubling is Apple had known about t
`
`
`
` and withheld production of it until the facts came to
`
`light during the deposition of Mr. Broddle on April 17, 2020. Ex. 4, Broddle Dep. Tr. at 218:13-
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 19361
`
`
`221:23. When
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 167 (emphasis added). A date that is
`
`ten months after the priority date of Maxell’s walking navigation patents. In this case, Mr.
`
`Ayres—who began working in Garmin in 2006 and has no personal knowledge of the actual
`
`facts from the relevant time period—submitted a declaration
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶¶ 164-165; Ex. 4, Broddle Dep. Tr. at 210:14-211:1. Put simply,
`
`the foundation of Apple’s contention that NavTalk is prior art rests upon the declaration of a
`
`Garmin employee who is attesting to facts that he has no personal knowledge about because he
`
`only started working at Garmin seven years after the alleged events. And that Garmin employee
`
`did not base his declaration on records kept in the ordinary course of business, but rather
`
`. Ex. 3, Ayres Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 8, 10. Yet,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. This is a far cry from establishing by
`
`clear and convincing evidence that NavTalk is prior art.
`
`The substance of Dr. Paradiso’s Report is no better. For example, the NavTalk device is
`
`purportedly 20 years old, and thus has assumedly been subject to software or firmware updates.
`
`Indeed, the Garmin webpage shows that “as of October 10, 2001,” the NavTalk devices had
`
`several software updates including versions 2.10, 2.13, 2.15, and 2.16. Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 158.
`
`Thus, Maxell is left to guess whether the particular software or firmware of the NavTalk device
`
`relied upon by Dr. Paradiso has been modified or updated in any way since the version that
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 19362
`
`
`allegedly predates the walking navigation patents, or if any of the components of the device were
`
`modified, replaced, or altered prior to Apple receiving it. Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 158. In fact, Dr.
`
`Paradiso provided no explanation on what version of software is executing on the NavTalk
`
`device being relied on or what features it contains. Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 159. An inspection of
`
`the NavTalk device reveals that the device’s software appears to be from on or after the year
`
`2000, which is after the critical date. Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 192.
`
`Mr. Ayres also relies on the NavTalk device’s alleged documentation to support his
`
`conclusions, pointing to a version of the NavTalk User Manual included as Exhibit 1 to Mr.
`
`Ayres’ Declaration, and a NavTalk Quick Reference Guide included as Exhibit 2. Ex. 2, Stoll
`
`Rep. at ¶¶ 168-70. All thees shows is that this NavTalk User Manual and Quick Reference Guide
`
`were printed in Taiwan on or around January 1999, not that these documents were disseminated
`
`to the public at that date. Id. And no evidence has been provided to show that the NavTalk User
`
`Manual or Quick Reference Guide relied on to discuss the features of the NavTalk device
`
`accurately represented the features associated with the NavTalk device on or before the critical
`
`date and not a future version of the device. Id.
`
`Finally, the bill of materials and sales records of the NavTalk device
`
`
`
` are insufficient to show
`
`public sale in the United States on or before the critical date. The public knowledge or use in pre-
`
`AIA 102(a) or public use or sale in pre-AIA 102(b) must be public knowledge, use or sale “in
`
`this country.” Public use or sale must be in this country in order to deny patentee his right of
`
`invention under predecessor to 35 USCS § 102. Gandy v. Main Belting Co., 143 U.S. 587
`
`(1892). Prior knowledge or use which is not present in the United States, even if widespread in a
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 19363
`
`
`foreign country, cannot be the basis of prior art under pre-AIA § 102. In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d
`
`321, (CCPA 1958).
`
`To start, the sales records
`
`
`
`, and Dr. Paradiso and Mr. Ayres make no effort to show that this is the case.
`
`The public use or sale basis for asserting NavTalk as prior art should be rejected on this fact
`
`alone. But several other problems also exist with the sales records and related evidence
`
`presented. For example,
`
`Further, the sales records
`
`Materials for the NavTalk device
`
`
`
`. Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 177.
`
`
`
` Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 178. And the Bill of
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 179. Finally, the various passages of Mr. Broddle’s prior
`
`deposition transcript relied on by Dr. Paradiso do not provide any evidence to show an actual
`
`sale/distribution of the NavTalk device in the United States, with or without its user manual
`
`because Mr. Broddle explained
`
`. See Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶¶ 182-91.
`
`
`
`Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in the evidence that ties the sales records, Bill of
`
`Materials, Ayres Declaration or Broddle testimony with the specific NavTalk device (at APL-
`
`MAXELL_P01)
`
`or NavTalk User Manual
`
`(at APL-MAXELL_P102; APL-
`
`MAXELL_00713785—789) in evidence in this case. See Ex. 2, Stoll Rep. at ¶ 193. For
`
`example, Mr. Broddle testified that
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 19364
`
`
`. Ex. 4, Broddle Dep. Tr. 187:15-24. At most, even the declaration of Mr.
`
`Ayres states that “a version” of the NavTalk Manual was “approved for public distribution on
`
`February 5, 1999,” not that the NavTalk User Manual in this case was in fact distributed
`
`publicly on or before February 5, 1999. Just because a Garmin NavTalk device was known/sold
`
`or a Garmin NavTalk User Manual was approved for distribution has no bearing on whether the
`
`particular Garmin NavTalk device or Garmin NavTalk User Manual that Dr. Paradiso relies on
`
`in this case were in fact known/sold. There are absolutely no facts linking the evidence to the
`
`Garmin NavTalk device or Garmin NavTalk User Manual relied upon by Dr. Paradiso for his
`
`invalidity opinions. See Navico Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00190-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`139806, at *11 (Granting summary judgment because the Court found “there isn’t enough of a
`
`connection to infer the [alleged user manual] is applicable to the [device].”) (adopted by Navico
`
`Inc. v. Garming Int'l, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141147, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017).
`
`There is simply too much we do not know about the NavTalk device that Apple has
`
`secured and the allegedly accompanying user manual. Dr. Paradiso’s reliance on these devices
`
`are untrustworthy at best. Apple has failed to point to a single piece of decisive evidence that can
`
`show by clear and convincing evidence that the NavTalk device on hand is a device that was
`
`publicly available, used or sold in the United States on or before the critical date. In fact, with
`
`respect to the physical device in evidence in this case, Apple has not provided any evidence from
`
`any witness stating where the NavTalk came from, who purchased it, whether it was modified
`
`from their original software/hardware configurations, when or where this specific version was
`
`first sold, and where has it been in the last twenty years. There is simply no evidence provided
`
`with respect to the chain of custody of the specific device in evidence in this case. Apple thus
`
`cannot carry its clear and convincing burden.
`
`
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 19365
`
`
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, summary judgment should be granted finding that
`
`Apple has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that NavTalk qualifies as prior art,
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102. As such, the Court should further find that Maxell’s walking navigation
`
`patents are not invalid based on any of NavTalk.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`By:
`
`/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
`William J. Barrow
`Baldine B. Paul
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Michael L. Lindinger
`Saqib Siddiqui
`Bryan C. Nese
`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
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 19366
`
`
`jfussell@mayerbrown.com
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`tmiller@mayerbrown.com
`mlindinger@mayerbrown.com
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`bnese@mayerbrown.com
`agelsleichter@mayerbrown.com
`cbakewell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda Streff Bonner
`Luiz Miranda
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 782-0600
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`asbonner@mayerbrown.com
`lmiranda@mayerbrown.com
`
`Graham (Gray) M. Buccigross
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`3000 El Camino Real, Suite 2-300
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 331-2000
`gbuccigross@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.
`
`
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 391 Filed 07/06/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 19367
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served this 2nd day of July 2020, with a copy of this document via
`electronic mail pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(d).
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Geoff Culbertson
`Geoff Culbertson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`