Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 24492
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
`MAXELL’S OPENING EXPERT REPORTS THAT
`EXCEED THE SCOPE OF MAXELL’S P.R. 3-1 INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`AND NEW EXPERT THEORIES OFFERED AFTER EXPERT REPORTS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 24493
`Case 5:19-cv-OOO36-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 24493
`
`Apple’s Motion to Strike (D1. 365) demonstrated that Maxell‘s expert reports improperly
`
`exceed the scope of its Infringement Contentions (SSIC) in violation of RR. 3-1. Maxell’s
`
`response attempts to distract from that issue by casting this as an evidentiary dispute for the jury.
`
`But the question of whether Maxell’s expert reports exceed the scope of the SSIC is not a jury
`
`issue. and Maxell’s responses lack merit. Apple respectfully requests that its Motion be granted.
`
`I. — Dr. Madisetti Report (’493 Patent)
`
`But this only addresses a small part of the problem.—
`
`. D.I. 401 at 6—7.
`
`Maxell takes a shotgrm approach to attempt to create a basis for this new theory. Maxell
`
`claims: (1) it disclosed this new theory in boilerplate reservation language added in its March 2020
`
`— <3)
`
`Madisetti relies
`
`on new evidence,
`
`a new theory: and—
`
`— None of these justify adding a new theory.
`
`— D1. 401 at 2—3. But the SSIC resulted fi‘om an
`
`order compelling Maxell to add source code citations for its existing theories—the C01111 did not
`
`grant Maxell leave to add a new theory. See D1. 204.—
`
`— D.I. 299 at 3—4 (emphasis original). Thus, Apple had no notice that the
`
`SSIC contained a new infiingement theory hidden in boilerplate reservation language.
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 24494
`
`
` D.I. 401-2, Appx. 3-A at 14‒17. This boilerplate statement falls far short
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the level of specificity required by the Court’s Order. D.I. 299 at 5.
`
` See D.I. 401 at 3‒4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`version of the image on the sensor … with a lower number of lines than the image on the sensor”
`
` Id. (citing “the displayed image is a downsampled/culled
`
`and “an image sensor that includes 1200 lines … those lines are down converted”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`. D.I. 365-2 at ¶¶ 390,
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 24495
`
`
`490, 493.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` D.I. 365 at 5. Maxell’s post-hoc attempt to remedy this deficiency consists of citations to
`
`general references to frame rates and video modes.
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Vojcic/Crockett Reports (’193 Patent)
`
` See D.I. 401 at 8.
`
` See D.I. 365 at 6‒7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 9. As shown below, Maxell then deceptively adds new annotations to images excerpted from its
`
`SSIC that did not exist in Maxell’s infringement contentions. Compare D.I. 401 at 9 (excerpt of
`
`Maxell’s Opposition below on the left) with D.I. 401-2 at 303 (excerpt of SSIC below on the right).
`
` D.I. 401
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 24496
`
`
`Maxell’s contentions included images about transceivers, which comprise transmitter (TX)
`
`
`
`
`
`and receiver (RX) components.
`
`III.
`
` Dr. Madisetti Report (’493 Patent)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. D.I. 401 at 11. This renders
`
`meaningless P.R. 3-3(d)’s requirement to disclose DOE theories on an element-by-element basis.
`
`Maxell further copies the same, irrelevant DOE reservation language Apple referred to—
`
`“to the extent Defendant argues that the Accused Apple ’493 Products do not have an image-
`
`instability detector,” equivalents “perform the equivalent function of detecting an amount of
`
`image-instability of the camera.” D.I. 401 at 10. First, this boilerplate language merely repeats
`
`the claim limitation; it does not provide notice of Maxell’s DOE theory.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 24497
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` D.I. 365-2, ¶ 634.
`
`IV. New Theories Offered In Deposition By Dr. Tim Williams (’586 Patent)
`Maxell concedes that (1) Dr. Williams will not testify that Claims 1 and 16 differ in scope;
`
`and (2) under both Claims 1 and 16, a device “must perform short-range wireless communications
`
`… while both devices are in the locked state.” D.I. 401 at 11. This dispute is resolved if Maxell will
`
`stipulate to these two terms. Otherwise, Apple requests the Court preclude Dr. Williams from
`
`presenting new claim constructions at trial. Claim construction is a question of law for the Court.
`
`Dr. Williams should also not be allowed to present opinions that were not in his reports.1
`
`V.
`
`Apple Has Suffered And Will Suffer Prejudice
`
`Apple was not aware of Maxell’s new theories before opening reports, and thus had no
`
`opportunity to identify prior art against these theories. Apple will be prejudiced if the Court does
`
`not strike the new theories. Maxell’s assertion that there is no prejudice because Apple submitted
`
`rebuttal reports (D.I. 401 at 13‒14) is wrong and would mean P.R. 3-1 is never enforced when a
`
`party adds new infringement theories in opening reports. Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T
`
`Corp., No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) (“prejudice []
`
`flows from allowing [a] party to disregard pretrial timing requirements”).
`
`For the reasons above, Apple requests the Court strike Maxell’s new theories.
`
`
`1 Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp. is inapposite because the parties disputed the
`expert’s analysis of damages evidence and further disputed whether the deposition question led to
`him testify about a topic outside of his report. No. 6:15-CV-00551-RWS, 2019 WL 1556252, at
`*3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2019). Here, Dr. Williams’s claim interpretation is foundational to his
`infringement and validity opinions. And Bridgelux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. is also inapposite because
`the report at issue was written before the Markman Order. No. 9:06-cv-240, 2008 WL 5549448,
`at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2008).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 24498
`
`
`July 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Luann L. Simmons
`
`
`
`Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou (Pro Hac Vice)
`vzhou@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Marc J. Pensabene (Pro Hac Vice)
`mpensabene@omm.com
`Laura Bayne Gore (Pro Hac Vice)
`lbayne@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)
`melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 24499
`Case 5:19-cv-OOO36-RWS Document 443 Filed 07/24/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 24499
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`consented to electronic sen/ice are being served with a copy of this document Via the Coult's
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV—5(a)(3) on July 22, 2020.
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`