Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 26440
`
`
`
`
`
`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’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S DAUBERT MOTION
`TO EXCLUDE CONCLUSORY TESTIMONY AND OPINIONS OF MAXELL’S
`EXPERTS RELATING TO DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS AND SOURCE CODE
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 26441
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Apple fails to analyze, much less address, the challenged DOE opinions ............ 1
`B.
`Apple misapplies the law on prosecution history estoppel .................................... 2
`C.
`Dr. Rosenberg’s structural equivalents opinions are proper .................................. 4
`D.
`Maxell’s source code opinions are proper ............................................................. 5
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 26442
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Felix v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`562 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................3
`
`Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 6:12CV421, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90398 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2012) .............................1
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.,
`370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................3
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................2
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 26443
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Like its underlying Motion, Apple’s Reply mischaracterizes and/or ignores the vast
`
`majority of the content that it seeks to exclude. Maxell’s Opposition addresses each of Apple’s
`
`challenges head on, identifying the significant analyses and evidence—including technical
`
`documentation, deposition testimony from Apple witnesses, and unchallenged portions of the
`
`reports—provided by each expert for their equivalents and source code opinions. But Apple
`
`sweeps all of this aside, insisting in conclusory fashion that the challenged opinions are
`
`inherently improper and viewable only in isolation. Similarly, with respect to Dr. Brogioli’s
`
`equivalents opinions, Apple continues to distort the scope of the alleged estoppel, and still
`
`ignores the conflicting characterization of the pertinent claim amendment proffered by its own
`
`expert. Apple’s Motion (Dkt. 367) is not supported by the facts or the law, and should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Apple fails to analyze, much less address, the challenged DOE opinions
`
`Apple does not cite a single case for the proposition it urges—that the doctrine of
`
`equivalents opinions of Maxell’s experts must be read in a vacuum divorced from the literal
`
`infringement analyses that frame their context. Nor has Apple addressed the “particularized
`
`testimony and linking argument as to the insubstantiality of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the accused device or process on a limitation-by-limitation basis” provided by
`
`Maxell’s experts, and as identified in Maxell’s Opposition (Dkt. 405 at 2-5). Fractus, S.A. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:12CV421, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90398, at *24 (E.D. Tex. June 28,
`
`2012).
`
`First, Apple sidesteps controlling precedent, which permits an expert to rely on and
`
`incorporate, implicitly or explicitly, prior testimony into a doctrine of equivalents analysis. Id. at
`
`*25 (“the expert is not required to ‘re-start his testimony at square one when transitioning to a
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 26444
`
`
`
`
`doctrine of equivalents analysis. Instead, an expert may explicitly or implicitly incorporate his
`
`earlier testimony into the DOE analysis.”) (citing Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d
`
`1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). That is precisely what Maxell’s experts have done. The “literal”
`
`infringement opinions identified in Maxell’s Opposition are part and parcel with the
`
`particularized testimony provided regarding the insubstantial differences between the claimed
`
`inventions and the accused products. They also provide the context through which the jury will
`
`hear Maxell’s doctrine of equivalents arguments. Apple casts the entirety of these opinions aside.
`
`That issue notwithstanding, Apple has failed to analyze the specific paragraphs that it
`
`asks this Court to exclude, much less the supporting opinions and evidence identified in Maxell’s
`
`Opposition. For example, Apple ignores: (1) Dr. Madisetti’s discussion of how “
`
`
`
`” (¶¶ 587-
`
`590), and how he specifically refers back to section X.B.3 (¶¶ 578-636) in support of his
`
`equivalents analysis; (2) Dr. Vojcic’s explanation of how
`
`
`
`technical documentation; (3) Dr. Rosenberg’s explanation of how the accused products include a
`
` (¶¶ 818-835), relying on source code and other
`
` relying on
`
`Apple testimony, videos, source code, and other technical documentation (¶¶ 516-640, 660); and
`
`(4) Dr. Maher’s reliance on product testing, Apple testimony, source code, and other technical
`
`documentation for the “ringing sound generator” limitation (¶¶ 104-130, 167-193). Apple’s
`
`arguments are entirely conclusory and should be disregarded.
`
`B.
`
`Apple misapplies the law on prosecution history estoppel
`
`Apple misstates the scope of the alleged estoppel. “[W]hen a claim is rewritten from
`
`dependent into independent form and the original independent claim is cancelled . . . the
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 26445
`
`
`
`
`surrendered subject matter is defined by the cancellation of independent claims that do not
`
`include a particular limitation and the rewriting into independent form of dependent claims
`
`that do include that limitation. Equivalents are presumptively not available with respect to that
`
`added limitation.” Felix v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 562 F.3d 1167, 1183-84 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(citing Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131, 1144 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). In other words, the presumption of surrender applies to the “added limitation” of the
`
`dependent claim. Apple’s sleight of hand analysis fails to accurately capture the claim limitation
`
`added by the amendment in question, and by extension the scope of the presumptive surrender.
`
`Apple omits from its analysis original independent claim 2, which recited among other
`
`things “said controller sends a power consumption reduction instruction to function devices”:
`
`Dkt. 405, Ex. 9 (Original ’151 Application at 13) (annotated). Original dependent claim 5,
`
`included the same limitation:
`
`Id. (Original ’151 Application at 14 (MAXELL_APPLE0000220)) (annotated).
`
`This necessarily means that the issuance of the power consumption reduction instruction
`
`from the controller to the function devices—the focus of the doctrine of equivalents theory that
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 26446
`
`
`
`
`Apple seeks to exclude—is not an added limitation for purposes of the surrendered scope
`
`analysis. See Dkt. 367 at 7 (citing Ex. 8 to same at ¶¶ 686-705, 1159-1178). That the limitation is
`
`not underlined in the amended version of claim 5 (which Apple emphasizes in its Reply) is
`
`irrelevant, as it was included in the base claim.
`
`Further, Apple has still yet to address the inconsistent position taken by its own expert
`
`regarding the scope of the surrendered subject matter: “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`” Dkt. 405, Ex. 11 (Menascé Rep.) at ¶ 389 (emphasis added). Notably missing from Dr.
`
`Menascé’s characterization of the claim amendment is any reference to the “power consumption
`
`reduction instruction”—the focus of the challenged equivalents theory.
`
`C.
`
`Dr. Rosenberg’s structural equivalents opinions are proper
`
`Despite two opportunities to do so, Apple has yet to address Dr. Rosenberg’s analysis
`
`explaining how
`
` in the accused products are structural equivalents
`
`to the device for data communication. Dkt. 405, Ex. 12 at ¶¶ 520-523, 660-661. This analysis
`
`relies on disclosure from the ’317 Patent (e.g., ¶¶ 520-522), as well as testimony from Apple
`
`engineers (e.g., ¶¶ 523, 561). Thus, Apple’s argument that “Dr. Rosenberg’s report has no
`
`infringement opinions based on structural equivalents” is demonstrably false. Dkt. 434 at 4.
`
`Apple’s allegation that “Maxell’s opposition attempts to supplement Dr. Rosenberg’s
`
`opinions” regarding “after arising technologies” is similarly unfounded. Id. First, Maxell’s
`
`arguments rely on the record itself, including deposition testimony and the ’317 Patent
`
`specification. Id. Second, the purpose of Maxell’s arguments is clearly not supplementation, but
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 26447
`
`
`
`
`rather to rebut Apple’s erroneous contention that
`
` are “after arising
`
`technology,” as supported by Dr. Rosenberg and Apple’s expert’s (Dr. Bims) testimony. Id.
`
`D. Maxell’s source code opinions are proper
`
`As with Maxell’s doctrine of equivalents opinions, Apple ignores the arguments and
`
`evidence set forth in Maxell’s Opposition regarding the scope of its experts’ source code
`
`analyses, and imposes an impossibly high standard for what would pass muster.
`
`Apple’s argument that “Maxell provides zero citations to its experts’ opinions” is belied
`
`by the Opposition itself. Maxell explained in detail the purpose of each challenged source code
`
`opinion, and identified several paragraphs and/or sections of source code analysis for each
`
`expert. Dkt. 405 at 11-15. Specifically, Maxell identified: (1) sections VIII (¶ 121), X.A.6.b,
`
`X.A.7.b, and X.B.3.a from Dr. Madisetti’s report (along with related deposition testimony); (2)
`
`paragraphs 117-149, 390-408, 416, 425, 436, 449-467, 484, 522, 581, 638 from Dr. Bystrom’s
`
`report; (3) paragraphs 51, 62, and 72 from Dr. Maher’s report; and (4) paragraphs 102-104 and
`
`283-298 of Dr. Williams report (and explained how those opinions carry over to paragraphs 310,
`
`331-333, 362-365, 473-476, 590-598, 612, 634-636, 666-669, and 777-780 of same). Apple’s
`
`reliance on Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc. is thus entirely misplaced. Maxell’s experts have
`
`done more than list source code files. They have analyzed the code, and where appropriate,
`
`explained where different source code versions are materially similar. If Apple wishes to
`
`challenge the weight of this evidence, it is permitted to do so. But Maxell’s experts were under
`
`no obligation to repeat their detailed analyses for every limitation and source code version. Nor
`
`is that a basis for excluding their testimony.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple’s Motion (Dkt. 367) should be denied.
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 26448
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 31, 2020
`
`By:
`
`/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
`William J. Barrow
`Baldine B. Paul
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Michael L. Lindinger
`Saqib J. 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
`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
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 26449
`
`
`
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 782-0600
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`asbonner@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 484 Filed 08/04/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 26450
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served this 31st day of July, 2020, with a copy of this document via
`electronic mail pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(d).
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`