throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 27633
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 27633
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 27535Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 27634
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`No. 5:19CV36-RWS
`
`§§
`



`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`
`V.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
`
`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 for Sanctions (Docket Entry # 210).
`
`The Court, having carefully considered the relevant briefing and hearing arguments of counsel July
`
`28, 2020, is of the opinion the motion should be 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.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 27536Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 27635
`
`II. BACKGROUND REGARDING
`APPLE’S DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Document production deadlines
`
`The original Docket Control Order provided a July 10, 2019 deadline to comply with
`
`Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures).1 Docket Entry # 46
`
`at p. 8. The deadline to comply with Patent Rule 3-4 regarding the production of documents
`
`sufficient to show how the accused instrumentalities work was August 14, 2019. Id. The fact
`
`discovery deadline was March 31, 2020.2 Id. at p. 4.
`
`B.
`
`Maxell’s first motion to compel
`
`It is instructive to consider the parties’ discovery disputes in determining whether sanctions
`
`are appropriate now. In its first motion to compel filed August 15, 2019, Maxell asked the Court to
`
`compel Apple to substantially complete its document production. At the hearing on September 17,
`
`2019, Maxell raised issues as to the timing and scope of Apple’s discovery responses. Arguing it was
`
`one month past the “last deadline for substantially completing discovery,” Maxell stated it was still
`
`missing license agreements, marketing materials, technical documents, service manuals, etc. Docket
`
`Entry # 100 at 46:24-47:13.
`
`1 Paragraph 3 of the Discovery Order for Patent Cases provides, among other things, that each party shall,
`without awaiting a discovery request, produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored
`information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to the pleaded claims
`or defenses involved in the 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. Docket Entry # 42 at pp. 2-3.
`
`2 The Docket Control Order was amended on March 16, 2020, 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. On April
`20, 2020, Judge Schroeder entered an Amended Docket Control Order, extending the deadline to complete all fact
`depositions to April 30, 2020. Docket Entry # 283 at p. 5. On May 8, 2020, the Court entered the parties’ Joint
`Stipulation Regarding Extension of Deadlines to Submit Initial and Rebuttal Expert Reports on the ’794 patent, ordering
`the parties exchange initial expert reports regarding the U.S. Patent. No. 6,329,794 on May 14, 2020 and exchange
`rebuttal expert reports regarding the same on June 11, 2020. Docket Entry # 325.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 27537Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 27636
`
`At the hearing, Apple pointed out there is no substantial completion of production deadline
`
`in this case, and the deadline for completion of fact discovery was still six and a half months away.
`
`Id. at 68:18-69:15; 73:24-74:2. Even so, Apple stated it would agree to a November 27, 2019
`
`“substantial completion date” for its document production. Id. at 69:16-19. Although disputed by
`
`Maxell, Apple’s counsel also represented Apple had produced technical documents under Patent
`
`Rule 3-4 sufficient to show the functionality of the accused products. Id. at 78:23-79:19 (further
`
`noting that some of the technical documents were not in Apple’s control but were in the control of
`
`Qualcomm and Intel and third parties); see also id. at 97:16-21 (representing to the Court that under
`
`the definition of “sufficient to show” under Patent Rule 3-4 Apple had produced user manuals and
`
`“the big ticket item which is source code”). Judge Schroeder noted that, with the “carve-out”
`
`regarding third-party technical documents, to the extent Apple did not meet that deadline, it would
`
`be in violation of Patent Rule 3-4. Id. at 79:6-80:1.
`
`On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
`
`Maxell’s first 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, noting
`
`Apple had assured the Court it was complying with the Court’s Discovery Order (regarding initial
`
`and additional disclosures). Id. at p. 3. The Court noted Apple had produced documents on July 10,
`
`July 18, July 26, August 2, and August 14, and it was unreasonable to expect Apple to produce all
`
`relevant documents, apart from those provided for in the Local Patent Rules, by July 10.3 Id. Noting
`
`Maxell’s broad allegations necessarily contemplate extensive discovery and document production,
`
`3 Noting the issue was not briefed and thus was not properly before the Court, Judge Schroeder did not address
`whether, as suggested by Maxell at the hearing, Apple had not produced “documentation sufficient to show the operation
`of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent claimant in its P. R. 3-1(c) chart” as
`required by Patent Rule 3-4. Docket Entry # 126 at p. 3, n. 1.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 27538Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 27637
`
`the Court noted Apple’s inability to complete document production by the “Additional Disclosures”
`
`deadline was understandable. Id. at pp. 3-4.
`
`The Court stated the parties agreed document production was still ongoing, and Apple had
`
`not taken the position that there was a category of documents it would not produce (other than those
`
`addressed in Interrogatory No. 9).4 Id. at p. 4. The Court stated it could not determine at that time
`
`whether Apple had met its discovery obligations to date. Id. The Court further stated it expected
`
`Apple to substantially complete all discovery by November 27, 2019, as agreed by Apple at the
`
`hearing. Id.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`Timeline relevant to Apple’s subsequent productions
`
`December 2019
`
`Apple made two productions of marketing surveys and reports in early December 2019.
`
`Declaration of Saqib J. Siddiqui in Support of Maxell, Ltd.’s Reply in Support of Opposed Motion
`
`for Sanctions (“Siddiqui Decl.”), ¶ 15.
`
`In a letter dated December 18, 2019, Maxell raised (in thirteen pages) additional deficiencies,
`
`including technical specifications for accused functionalities,
`
` third-party component documents, twenty-two categories of source code, the improper
`
`production of documents on the source code computers, and deficient interrogatory responses.
`
`Docket Entry # 210 at pp. 9-10; see also Ex. H attached thereto. Maxell also subpoenaed suppliers
`
`4 The Court notes Apple did address the issue of licenses at the hearing.
` Docket Entry # 100 at 71:18-72:14; 76:22-
`77:1 (further noting the parties’ dispute about the scope of the licensing agreements, which could be addressed later after
`Apple’s forthcoming production). Apple explained it had produced a few licenses but the bulk of the licenses required
`third-party consent, which Apple hoped to receive by the end of October. Id. at 78:8-22. Whereas Maxell had requested
`all licenses for every one of the products and reasonably similar products, Apple represented to the Court it had agreed
`to produce licenses relevant to the accused functionalities in the case. According to Apple, it was producing licenses
`based on technology rather than the products. Id. at 71:1-15.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 27539Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 27638
`
`of third-party component documents directly for component information. Id. at p. 5, n. 5 (stating that
`
`in many instances, the suppliers resisted or delayed production, noting Apple should have the
`
`documents and was given permission to produce them).
`
`2.
`
`January 2020
`
`In early January 2020, Apple made three productions of documents (including specifications,
`
`Bills of Materials, forecasts, and flowcharts). Siddiqui Decl., ¶ 15. Apple also responded to Maxell’s
`
`December 18, 2019 letter via letter dated January 15, 2020. Docket Entry # 210, Ex. I. In the letter,
`
`Apple stated Maxell’s unreasonable requests included demands for documents and source code that
`
`had already been produced or that Apple had already advised Maxell could not be found after a
`
`reasonable search; documents and source code that were neither relevant nor proportional to the
`
`needs of the case; and newly-identified source code not previously requested in discovery and which
`
`was not relevant to the accused functionalities in this case. Id. at p. 1. Nonetheless, Apple reiterated
`
`its commitment to work cooperatively with Maxell. Id. at p. 2. However, Apple stated its “agreement
`
`to investigate issues raised by Maxell” was “not a concession that Apple is or was required by the
`
`Local and/or Federal Rules to produce any additional documents or source code, particularly in view
`
`of Apple’s substantial productions.” Id.
`
`After additional back and forth and a meet and confer, Apple represented on January 31, 2020
`
`that “Apple has conducted a reasonable investigation for the accused functionalities and produced
`
`all responsive technical documents that could be located after a reasonable search.” Docket Entry
`
`# 210, Ex. K at p. 2.
`
`3.
`
`February 2020
`
`Apple made two productions of documents
`
`) in early February
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 27540Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 27639
`
`2020. Siddiqui Decl., ¶ 15. Believing material was still missing, Maxell filed its second motion to
`
`compel on February 14, 2020. In its second motion to compel, Maxell requested 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
`
`surveys, owner surveys, and owner studies, and 6) produce the prior litigation documents requested
`
`by Maxell.
`
`On February 19-20, 2020, Apple produced source code for “Maps” for accused Watch
`
`products and FaceTime for accused MacBook products. Apple also produced
`
` more internal-
`
`survey type documents.
`
`Judge Schroeder referred Maxell’s second motion to compel to the undersigned on February
`
`26, 2020. Docket Entry # 203. Two days later, Judge Schroeder issued an Order granting Apple’s
`
`motion to compel infringement contentions compliant with P.R. 3-1(g). Docket Entry # 204. Judge
`
`Schroeder ordered Maxell to serve revised infringement contentions to provide source code citations
`
`with a degree of specificity consistent with the Court’s order by March 13, 2020. Id. at p. 5. The
`
`Court stated that to the extent Maxell demonstrates through its second motion to compel that source
`
`code production is incomplete, Maxell may move for leave to supplement its contentions. Id.
`
`4.
`
`March 2020
`
`Maxell filed its current motion for sanctions on March 5, 2020. That same day, Apple
`
`produced source code for a new operating system released in September 2019 (iPadOS 13.1).5
`
`5 Apple states Maxell finally provided its overdue infringement contentions on March 13, 2020. According to
`Apple, Maxell did not cite much (at least 83%) of the additional source code it demanded Apple make available and
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 27541Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 27640
`
`5.
`
`April 2020
`
`On April 8, 2020, the undersigned entered a forty-one page sealed Order, granting in part and
`
`denying in part Maxell’s second motion to compel and denying Apple’s requests for costs and fees.
`
`Docket Entry # 274. The Court considered three main issues raised in Maxell’s second motion to
`
`compel: (1) alleged deficiencies in Apple’s production of technical documents; (2) continuing issues
`
`with Apple’s production of non-source code documents on source code computers; and (3)
`
`continuing issues with Apple’s production of non-technical documents. The Court summarizes those
`
`rulings below.
`
`Technical documents
`
`Regarding alleged deficiencies in Apple’s production of technical documents, the Court
`
`ordered as follows:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Complete schematics
`To the extent Apple has not already produced all requested and
`complete schematics as represented, it shall do so immediately.
`Otherwise, this part of Maxell’s motion is denied.
`
`Documents Describing Cellular Functionalities
`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.
`
`Skyworks Code
`Regarding complete datasheets, Apple asserts the issue was resolved
`by Skyworks’ production of datasheets in response to Maxell’s
`subpoena, ‘and Maxell’s demand that Apple search for the same
`
`which Maxell claimed was a prerequisite to provide those contentions.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 27542Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 27641
`
`documents is not proportionate to Maxell’s needs given Skyworks’s
`production.’ Id. The Court agrees. Regarding
`, Apple represents it has ‘performed a
`reasonable search and produced what it found. Nothing suggests that
`such documents exist. Id. at p. 3. This part of Maxell’s motion is
`denied.
`
`Requirements Specifications
`To the extent Apple has in its possession any remaining
` Specifications corresponding to the
`
`chips that have not already been produced, they should be produced
`immediately. However, considering proportionality concerns, the
`Court is of the opinion the remainder of this part of Maxell’s motion
`should be denied. The Court finds further searches for complete
`versions of specifications/datasheets for
`
`, would provide little
`additional benefit to Maxell and would not be proportional to the
`needs of the case. . . .
`
`Testing Documents
`The Court is not convinced these reports are relevant and proportional
`therefore denies Maxell’s request regarding SAR Evaluation Reports.
`
`Application Processor Chipset User Manual/ Micro-Architecture
`Specification
`This part of Maxell’s motion is granted. To the extent any user
`manuals or
`
` have not been produced to Maxell, Apple shall produce
`such documents to Maxell immediately.
`
`Technical Specifications/Software Design Guides/Firmware Device
`Specification/ Hardware Abstraction Layer Specifications
`Having carefully considered the original briefing as well as the
`parties’ supplemental reports, the Court denies Maxell’s motion to
`compel regarding the two issues which Maxell contends are still
`unresolved.6 Regarding the first issue, Apple represents in its
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`6 The two issues were (1) “documents describing architecture or implementation details,” testing documents,
`technical specifications, and/or any additional relevant document describing any of the accused functionalities that
`
`, and (2) documents
`and describing image processing, image stabilization, and/or power management for the Accused ’493 Products and the
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 27543Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 27642
`
`responsive report it has performed a reasonable search and produced
`which it found, ‘including from the locations listed by Maxell when
`it identified by Apple engineers as containing potentially responsive
`documents.’ Docket Entry # 268 at p. 4. Regarding the second issue,
`Apple represents it produced documents after a reasonable search,
`‘including the
` Maxell alleged to be missing,
`from this source.’ Id. at p. 5.
`
`Camera Module Specifications
`Apple represents it has produced datasheets for camera components
`like the CMOS image sensor but has not located specifications for
`camera modules. Docket Entry # 258 at p. 7. Apple represents it is not
`aware of any additional responsive documents. This part of Maxell’s
`motion is denied.
`
`Source Code
`Maxell’s motion listed source code which Apple had not produced or
`had not identified as produced. Docket Entry # 197 at pp. 3-4. In their
`supplemental reports, the parties agree the issue is resolved based on
`Apple’s agreement to make the
` available for
`inspection once COVID-19 restrictions permit. . . .
`
`Redacted Documents
`Although not raised in Maxell’s motion to compel, Maxell asserts in
`its reply that many documents Apple produced in this case contain
`unexplained redactions. . . . This part of Maxell’s motion is denied.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Docket Entry # 274 at pp. 11-27.
`
`Non-source code documents on source code computers
`
`Regarding continuing issues with Apple’s production of non-source code documents on
`
`source code computers, the Court ordered as follows:
`
`The Court is of the opinion Maxell’s request should be denied. Maxell’s request for
`production of spreadsheets in native format is inappropriate and contrary to the terms
`of the governing protective order. . . .
`
`Docket Entry # 274 at p. 31.
`
`Accused ’794 Products.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 27544Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 27643
`
`Non-technical documents
`
`Regarding continuing issues with Apple’s production of non-technical documents, the Court
`
`ordered as follows:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Forecast Documents
`In its surreply, Apple points out Maxell does not cite any such public
`report in its reply, nor does it clarify whether these are Apple or third-
`party reports. Docket Entry # 258 at p. 10. Regardless, Apple
`represents it has produced internal forecasts for the most recent
`quarters and will continue to produce updated forecasts up to trial. Id.
`Considering this representation and the further representations made
`in Apple’s responsive report, the Court is of the opinion this part of
`Maxell’s motion should be denied.
`
`Licenses
`Similar to District Judge Schroeder’s earlier finding, the Court finds
`Apple has not established why it should not be required to produce
`the additional license agreements Maxell asks for. Therefore, the
`Court grants this part of Maxell’s motion. Within ten days from the
`date of entry of this order, Apple shall produce to Maxell the license
`agreement
`
`.
`
`Marketing Surveys
`The parties’ supplemental reports advise this issue has been resolved.
`
`Prior Litigation Documents
`The Court agrees with Apple that requiring Apple to contact ‘its
`myriad prior outside counsel to look for additional documents or
`reports’ would not be proportional to the needs of the case, especially
`weighed against the minimal relevance of the requested documents.
`This part of Maxell’s motion is denied.
`
`Docket Entry # 274 at pp. 31-37.
`
`III. MAXELL’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
`
`In support of its motion for sanctions, Maxell relies on Apple’s alleged failure to satisfy
`
`Patent Rule 3-4 regarding its production of technical documents and Apple’s alleged failure to satisfy
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 27545Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 27644
`
`Judge Schroeder’s Order that Apple substantially complete its production of all relevant documents
`
`by November 27, 2019. According to Maxell’s motion for sanctions, Apple has produced over
`
`documents and significant additional source code after November 27, 2019 (over
`
` documents
`
`having been produced since Apple’s January 31, 2020 representation of completion). Regarding
`
`Apple’s alleged failure to satisfy Patent Rule 3-4, Maxell specifically identifies the following
`
`technical documents in its motion for sanctions: Apple’s February 19, 2020 production of source
`
`code for “Maps” for accused Watch products and for FaceTime for accused MacBook products; and
`
`Apple’s March 5, 2020 production of its new operation system, iPadOS 13.1, which runs on several
`
`of the accused products. Docket Entry # 210 at p. 9 In further arguing Apple failed to substantially
`
`complete production of all relevant documents by November 27, 2019, Maxell states Apple’s “late
`
`productions” consist of marketing surveys, third-party component datasheets, internal specifications,
`
`materials improperly produced on the source-code computers, and functionality flowcharts. Id. at p.
`
`10.
`
`Maxell states Apple’s so-called late production of technical documents and relevant
`
`information critical to its contentions has prejudiced Maxell, impairing its ability to prosecute its
`
`case. Id. Specifically regarding source code, Maxell asserts it has expended substantial time and
`
`money to repeatedly send attorneys and experts to perform review of incomplete source code, often
`
`without up-to-date interrogatory responses linking source code to operating systems/accused
`
`products or complete technical documents that describe the functionalities in the source code.
`
`Additionally, Maxell states Apple demanded that Maxell prepare supplemental infringement
`
`contentions based on incomplete source code, and then moved to compel further supplementation
`
`when it was dissatisfied with the results, thereby causing Maxell to expend unnecessary time and
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 27546Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 27645
`
`resources opposing a motion that was spurred by Apple’s own deficiencies, and preparing iterative
`
`supplementations. Maxell claims the biggest prejudice “has been the divergence of time and effort
`
`spent addressing Apple’s discovery misconduct at the expense of analyzing discovery, preparing for
`
`depositions and expert reports, and preparing the case for trial.” Id. at p. 11. According to Maxell,
`
`“Apple’s eleventh-hour productions in February and March, when discovery is winding down and
`
`depositions are imminent, make this prejudice particularly acute.” Id.
`
`Asserting it has been prejudiced as a result of “Apple’s gamesmanship,” id., Maxell requests
`
`the following sanctions: (1) preclude Apple from using the discovery it failed to timely produce,
`
`including discovery produced after January 31, 2020; (2) deem certain accused products/components
`
`and source code to be representative of all versions of that product as detailed in a chart provided
`
`by Maxell; and (3) assess monetary sanctions against Apple.
`
`According to Apple, the Court does not even need to consider Maxell’s requested sanctions
`
`until the Court determines that Maxell has shown sanctionable conduct by Apple. Apple asserts
`
`Maxell has failed to show that Apple acted in bad faith, either by failing to comply with Patent Rule
`
`3-4, or by failing to substantially complete its production by November 27, 2019.
`
`At the July 28, 2020 hearing, Apple offered the following explanation as to why it continued
`
`to produce documents after its November 27, 2019 substantial completion of production and even
`
`after its January 31, 2020 representation of completion. According to Apple, Maxell buried Apple
`
`in continued demands for documents and source code that far exceeded any reasonable scope of
`
`discovery. Apple asserts that no matter what it produced, Maxell claimed something was missing.
`
`Apple states that in an attempt to avoid motion practice, Apple would go back and look for more,
`
`but each time Apple produced specifications or source code, Maxell would look for citations to other
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 27547Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 27646
`
`specifications or source code and demand more documents, thus creating a pattern.
`
`For example, Apple states it was only in its second motion to compel (after vaguely alleging
`
`that Apple did not produce “all”schematics) that Maxell specifically identified the schematics it
`
`believed were missing. Docket Entry # 237 at p. 6. Similarly with regard to certain test documents,
`
`Apple states Maxell did not raise the issue with Apple until the second motion to compel; despite
`
`Apple’s assertion of irrelevance, Apple produced the documents anyway. Id. Regarding the fourteen
`
`source code projects identified in Maxell’s second motion to compel, Apple states it had already
`
`produced some version of each project before the motion. According to Apple, five were “missing
`
`certain versions which Apple promptly supplemented (as it would have done without a motion); the
`
`other nine were already complete and no further supplement was necessary.”7 Id.
`
`Regarding Maxell’s demands for third-party datasheets for all components of the accused
`
`productions, Apple states Maxell’s infringement contentions nowhere mention most of the
`
`components for which Maxell demanded datasheets.8 Id. at p. 5. Even so, Apple states it “identified
`
`information for Maxell’s laundry list of purportedly relevant components for more than 120 Accused
`
`Products” and supplemented accordingly.9 Id.
`
`7 On February 19-20, 2020, Apple produced source code for “Maps” for accused Watch products and FaceTime
`for accused MacBook products. According to Apple, it had already produced the bulk of the source code that implement
`FaceTime for both iOS and MacOS as part of the
` projects in 2019, including a version of this project
`before the Patent Rule 3-4 deadline. Apple states it also produced Maps source code for other platforms, including for
`various versions of iOS. Thus, Apple states its “inadvertent omission of two projects for a particular platform, while
`producing the same projects for others, hardly rises to the level of sanctionable conduct.” Docket Entry # 237 at p. 11.
`
`8 Apple states Maxell’s June 2019 infringement contentions vaguely alleged infringement of 90 claims from
`10 different patents by approximately 17 functionalities across more than 120 Accused Products and 19 operating
`systems, including Mac computers, iPhones, iPads, iPods, and Apple Watches sold from June 2012 to present. Docket
`Entry # 237 at pp. 2-3.
`
`9
`p. 5. Apple also located and produced datasheets. Id.
`
`. Docket Entry # 237 at
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 27548Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 27647
`
`Even if sanctions were appropriate, which Apple disputes, Apple contends Maxell’s
`
`proposals go far beyond remedying the discovery deficiencies it alleges and, consistent with its
`
`overall strategy, seek to gain an unfair strategic advantage.10 Id. at p. 15. Apple argues “Maxell’s
`
`purpose is clarified even more so by the lack of connection between the alleged deficiencies and
`
`requested sanctions.” Id. (noting Maxell requests sanctions directed to numerous P.R. 3-1(g)
`
`software limitations based on the absence of third party hardware datasheets). Apple represents it
`
`has “long made available the source code for these software limitations and Maxell never alleges
`
`how any hardware information is relevant to those claims.” Id.
`
`Apple further argues as follows:
`
`While Apple has never refused to produce a single technical document or source code
`file that it has been able to locate, Maxell asserts that the Court should still sanction
`Apple because it did not finish addressing Maxell’s serial, goal-post-moving
`demands by a date (plucked from thin air) two months before fact discovery
`originally closed. But Maxell’s motion betrays its true motive: forcing a premature
`representative products agreement to ease Maxell’s burden, while avoiding the merits
`and raising Apple’s costs with each manufactured discovery dispute.11
`
`Id. at p. 2. Apple argues Maxell has suffered no prejudice, and its effort to broadly declare products
`
`to the “representative” is without merit.
`
`10 For example, seven of Maxell’s sanctions involve precluding Apple from disputing that “one accused product
`is representative of other products having the same category of components.” Docket Entry # 237 at p. 15 (emphasis
`in original). According to Apple, if one product has a “camera” Maxell seeks a finding of representativeness as to any
`other product that also has a camera, even if that product operates in completely different manner. Apple asserts Maxell’s
`proposed sanctions are not only without basis, but also technically incorrect. Id.
`
`11 Apple acknowledges it did meet with Maxell to discuss Maxell’s proposal that Apple agree to the use of
`representative products in this case. Apple states Maxell essentially wants Apple to agree to be sanctioned. Apple states
`it will continue to discuss the issue of representative products in an effort to streamline this case, but there is no
`requirement for Apple to agree to the proposal nor should representative products be proposed as a resolution to Maxell’s
`motion for sanctions.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 510 Filed 08/25/20 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 27549Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 525-1 Filed 09/01/20 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 27648
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`Generally, sanctions can be imposed pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)
`
`or the court’s inherent power. Smith v. Chrysler Grp., L.L.C., No. 1:15-CV-218, 2016 WL 7741735,
`
`at *3 n. 8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2016) (citing Allstate Tex. Lloyd’s v. McKinney, 964 F. Supp. 2d 678,
`
`682 (S.D. Tex. 2013); also citing Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598,
`
`611-12 (S.D. Tex. 2010)). Rule 37(b) sanctions, however, apply to conduct occurring during the
`
`discovery process. Smith, 2016 WL 7741735, at *3 n. 8 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 37(b); also citing
`
`Allstate Tex. Lloyd’s, 964 F. Supp. 2d at 682).
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 authorizes the court to issue sanctions for a party’s failure
`
`to comply with discovery orders. Innovation Sciences, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al, No.
`
`4:18-CV-474-ALM, 2020 WL 4431875, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2020) (citing FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`37(b)(2)(A), (C)). “Rule 37 sanctions must be applied diligently both ‘to penalize those whose
`
`conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, [and] to deter those who might be tempted to
`
`such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.” Id. (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447
`
`U.S. 752, 763–64 (1980) (alteration in original) (citation

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