Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 29430
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`JOINT FINAL PRE-TRIAL ORDER
`
`The Pre-trial Conference is scheduled for November 12, 2020, pursuant to the Court’s
`
`
`
`Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 502) and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure. The following parties submit this Joint Pretrial Order: Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”
`
`or “Maxell”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”).
`
`COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff:
`
`Geoff P. Culbertson
`Kelly B. 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
`Baldine B. Paul
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Saqib J. Siddiqui
`
`A.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 29431
`
`Bryan C. Nese
`William J. Barrow
`Michael L. Lindinger
`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
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`tmiller@mayerbrown.com
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`bnese@mayerbrown.com
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`mlindinger@mayerbrown.com
`agelsleichter@mayerbrown.com
`cbakewell@mayrbrown.com
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda S. Bonner
`Mayer Brown LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 782-0600
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`asbonner@mayerbrown.com
`
`Graham M. Buccigross
`Mayer Brown LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Suite 2-300
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 331-2000
`gbuccigross@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`2. Defendant:
`
`Harry L. Gillam, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 07921800
`Melissa Richards Smith
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 29432
`
`Texas Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Mark D. Fowler (Pro Hac Vice)
`Brent K. Yamashita
`Christian Chessman
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Ave.
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
`Tel: 650.833.2000
`Fax: 650.833.2001
`
`Sean C. Cunningham (Pro Hac Vice)
`Erin P. Gibson (Pro Hac Vice)
`Kevin Hamilton (Pro Hac Vice)
`David R. Knudson (Pro Hac Vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`
`Michael Jay (Pro Hac Vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 310.595.3000
`Fax: 310.595.3300
`
`Aaron G. Fountain
`Zachary Loney
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, Texas 78701-3799
`Tel: 512.457.7000
`Fax: 512.457.7001
`
`Dawn M. Jenkins
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2800
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 29433
`
`
`
`Houston, TX 77002-5005
`Tel: 713.425.8490
`Fax: 713.300.6012
`
`Paul Steadman
`Stephanie Lim (Pro Hac Vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`444 West Lake Street, Ste. 900
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: 312.368.4000
`Fax: 312.236.7516
`
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et
`
`B.
`
`seq. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a). Jurisdiction is not contested by any party.
`
`C.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`Maxell’s Statement
`
`This is a suit for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Apple infringes, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317 (the “’317
`
`Patent”), 6,580,999 (the “’999 Patent”), 8,339,493 (the “’493 Patent”), 7,116,438 (the “’438
`
`Patent”), 6,408,193 (the “’193 Patent”), 10,084,991 (the “’991 Patent”), 6,928,306 (the “’306
`
`Patent”), 6,329,794 (the “’794 Patent”), 10,212,586 (the “’586 Patent”), and 6,430,498 (the “’498
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Further, Apple’s infringement is and has been willful.
`
`Maxell seeks an injunction and both pre- and post-verdict damages to compensate Maxell for
`
`Apple’s acts of infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the infringement.
`
`Maxell also seeks enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and recovery of its attorneys’
`
`fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, as well as its costs.
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 29434
`
`
`
`Apple’s Statement
`
`Maxell’s claims are without merit. Apple does not infringe any asserted claim of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Moreover, Apple’s alleged
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has not been, and is not, willful. Additionally, each of the
`
`asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit is invalid as anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`and/or 103. Additionally, the ’586 patent is invalid and void for failure to comply with the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C § 112. Further, the ’317 patent, the ’498 patent, the ’999 patent, the
`
`’306 patent, and the ’794 patent are invalid for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Maxell is not entitled to any relief, including injunctive relief or monetary damages.
`
`Maxell is not entitled to enhanced damages, nor is this an exceptional case entitling Maxell to its
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs. Apple, however, is entitled to recovery of its attorneys’ fees under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285, as well as its costs, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
`
`The parties set forth below a summary of their contentions for trial. The parties do not
`
`necessarily agree with each other’s summaries and contentions and reserve all objections.
`
`Maxell’s Statement of Its Contentions
`
`By providing these contentions, Maxell does not waive any of its motions in limine,
`
`
`
`motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and/or motions to strike which, if granted,
`
`would resolve some or all of these issues. Furthermore, Maxell’s contentions in this case are
`
`detailed, in part, in its pleadings, infringement contentions, discovery responses and deposition
`
`testimony, the expert reports and depositions of Maxell’s experts, and its motion briefing and
`
`responses to Apple’s pending and anticipated motions, which are all incorporated by reference
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 29435
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`1. Maxell is the owner by assignment of the Patents-in-Suit and possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the Patents-in-Suit, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.
`
`2. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`Texarkana Division, in this case.
`
`3. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court.
`
`4. Maxell contends that the Patents-in-Suit are valid, enforceable, and infringed by Apple.
`
`5. Maxell contends that Apple infringes, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, claims
`
`1 and 17 of the ’317 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the
`
`United States the following products: iPhone 5c (A1456/A1532), iPhone 5s (A1453/A1533),
`
`iPhone 6S (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6S Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone
`
`6 (A1549/A1586), iPhone 6 Plus (1522/1524), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 7 Plus
`
`(A1661/A1784),
`
`iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905),
`
`iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897),
`
`iPhone X
`
`(A1865/A1901), iPhone XS (A1920), iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone 11
`
`(A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPad Air (A1475), iPad mini 2
`
`(A1490), iPad Air 2 (A1567), iPad Air 3 (A2123/A2153), iPad mini 3 (A1600), iPad mini 4
`
`(A1550), iPad mini 5 (A2124/A2126), iPad Pro (A1709), iPad Pro (A1652), iPad Pro
`
`(A1674/A1675), iPad Pro (A2013), iPad 5th generation (A1823), iPad 6th generation (A1954),
`
`iPad 7th generation (A2200/A2198), iPad Pro (2nd generation) (A1671), iPad Pro (3rd generation)
`
`(A2014/A1895), and Apple Watch Series 5 (A2092/A2093/A2094/A2095) (“the ’317 Accused
`
`Products”).
`
`6. Maxell contends that Apple infringes, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, claim
`
`3 of the ’999 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the United
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 29436
`
`
`
`States the following products: iPhone 6S (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6S Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone
`
`SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784), iPhone 8
`
`(A1863/A1905), iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone XS (A1920),
`
`iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone
`
`11 Pro Max (A2161), iPad Air 3 (A2123/A2153), iPad mini 4 (A1550), iPad mini 5
`
`(A2124/A2126), iPad Pro (A1709), iPad Pro (A1652), iPad Pro (A1674/A1675), iPad Pro
`
`(A2013), iPad 5th generation (A1823), iPad 6th generation (A1954), iPad 7th generation
`
`(A2200/A2198), iPad Pro (2nd generation) (A1671), iPad Pro (3rd generation) (A2014/A1895),
`
`and Apple Watch Series 5 (A2092/A2093/A2094/A2095) (“the ’999 Accused Products”).
`
`7. Maxell contends that Apple infringes, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, claims
`
`3 and 13 of the ’498 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the
`
`United States the following products: iPhone 5c (A1456/A1532) (claim 3 only), iPhone 5s
`
`(A1453/A1533) (claim 3 only), iPhone 6S (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6S Plus (A1634/A1687),
`
`iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 6 (A1549/A1586) (claim 3 only), iPhone 6 Plus (1522/1524)
`
`(claim 3 only), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784), iPhone 8
`
`(A1863/A1905), iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone XS (A1920),
`
`iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone
`
`11 Pro Max (A2161), iPad Air (A1475) (claim 3 only), iPad mini 2 (A1490) (claim 3 only), iPad
`
`Air 2 (A1567) (claim 3 only), iPad Air 3 (A2123/A2153), iPad mini 3 (A1600) (claim 3 only),
`
`iPad mini 4 (A1550), iPad mini 5 (A2124/A2126), iPad Pro (A1709), iPad Pro (A1652), iPad Pro
`
`(A1674/A1675), iPad Pro (A2013), iPad 5th generation (A1823), iPad 6th generation (A1954),
`
`iPad 7th generation (A2200/A2198), iPad Pro (2nd generation) (A1671), and iPad Pro (3rd
`
`generation) (A2014/A1895) (“the ’498 Accused Products”).
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 29437
`
`
`
`8. Maxell contends that Apple literally infringes claim 5 and infringes, literally and under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, claim 6 of the ’493 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell,
`
`and/or importing into the United States the following products: iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro
`
`(A2160), iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPhone Xs (A1920), iPhone Xs Max (A1921), iPhone XR
`
`(A1984), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897), iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905),
`
`iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 6s Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone
`
`6s (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6 Plus (A1522/A1524), iPhone 6 (A1549/A1586), iPhone SE
`
`(A1723/A1662), iPhone 5s (A1453/A1533/A1457/A1518/ A1528/A1530), and iPhone 5c
`
`(A1456/A1532) (“the ’493 Accused Products”).
`
`9. Maxell contends that Apple literally infringes claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’438 Patent by way
`
`of three infringement theories.
`
`a. Under the first infringement theory, the “Airdrop Theory,” Maxell contends that
`
`Apple infringes claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’438 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell,
`
`and/or importing into the United States the following products: iPhone XS (A1920), iPhone XS
`
`Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897),
`
`iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905), iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 6s
`
`Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone 6s (A1633/A1688), iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 6
`
`(A1549/A1586), iPhone 6 Plus (A1522/A1524), iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160),
`
`iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPad Air 2 (A1566/A1567), iPad Air 3 (A2152/A2153/A2123), iPad
`
`Mini 3 (A1599/A1600), iPad Mini 4 (A1538/A1550), iPad Mini 5 (A2124/A2126/A2133), iPad
`
`Pro (A1701/A1709),
`
`iPad Pro (A1652),
`
`iPad Pro (A1673/A1674/A1675),
`
`iPad Pro
`
`(/A1980/A2013), iPad 5th generation (A1822/A1823), iPad 6th generation (A1893/A1954), iPad
`
`7th generation (A2200/A2198/A2197), iPad Pro (2nd generation) (A1670/A1671), iPad Pro (3rd
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 29438
`
`
`
`generation) (A1876/A2014/A1895), iPod Touch 5th Generation (A1509/A1421), iPod Touch 6th
`
`Generation (A1574), and iPod Touch 7th Generation (A2178) (“the ’438 Accused AirDrop
`
`Products”).
`
`b. Under the second infringement theory, the “Apple Watch Theory,” Maxell
`
`contends that Apple infringes claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’438 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sell, and/or importing into the United States the following products: Apple Watch
`
`Series 5 (A2092/A2093/A2094/A2095), Series 4 (A1975/A1976/A1977/A1978), Series 3
`
`(A1860/A1861/A1858/A1859), Series 1 (A1802/A1803) (“the ’438 Accused Watch Products”).
`
`c. Under the third infringement theory, the “Pairable iPhone Theory,” Maxell
`
`contends that Apple infringes claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’438 Patent by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sell, and/or importing into the United States the following products: iPhone 11
`
`(A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPhone XS (A1920), iPhone XS
`
`Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897),
`
`iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905), iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 6s
`
`Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone 6s (A1633/A1688), iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 6
`
`(A1549/A1586), and iPhone 6 Plus (A1522/A1524) (“the ’438 Pairable iPhone Products”).
`
`10. Maxell contends that Apple infringes, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, claims
`
`1 and 6 of the ’193 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the
`
`United States the following products: iPhone 6S (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6S Plus (A1634/A1687),
`
`iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 6 (A1549/A1586), iPhone 6 Plus (1522/1524), iPhone 7
`
`(A1660/A1778), iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784), iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905), iPhone 8 Plus
`
`(A1864/A1897), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone XS (A1920), iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone
`
`XR (A1984), iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPad Air
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 29439
`
`
`
`2 (A1567), iPad Air 3 (A2123/A2153), iPad mini 3 (A1600), iPad mini 4 (A1550), iPad mini 5
`
`(A2124/A2126), iPad Pro (A1709), iPad Pro (A1652), iPad Pro (A1674/A1675), iPad Pro
`
`(A2013), iPad 5th generation (A1823), iPad 6th generation (A1954), iPad 7th generation
`
`(A2200/A2198), iPad Pro (2nd generation) (A1671), iPad Pro (3rd generation) (A2014/A1895)
`
`(“the ’193 Accused Products”).
`
`11. Maxell contends that Apple literally infringes claim 4 of the ’991 Patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the United States the following products: iPhone
`
`6S (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6S Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 6
`
`(A1549/A1586), iPhone 6 Plus (1522/1524), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 7 Plus
`
`(A1661/A1784),
`
`iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905),
`
`iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897),
`
`iPhone X
`
`(A1865/A1901), iPhone XS (A1920), iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone 11
`
`(A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPad mini 2 (A1489/A1490), iPad
`
`mini 3 (A1599/A1600), iPad mini 4 (A1538/A1550), iPad mini 5 (A2124/A2126/A2133), iPad
`
`Pro (9.7”) (A1673/A1674/A1675), iPad Pro (10.5”) (A1701/A1709), iPad Pro (12.9”)
`
`(A1584/A1652), iPad Pro (11”) (A1980/A2013), iPad 5th generation (A1822/A1823), iPad 6th
`
`generation (A1893/A1954), iPad 7th generation (A2197/A2198/A2200), iPad Pro (12.9”, 2nd
`
`generation) (A1670/A1671), iPad Pro (12.9”, 3rd generation) (A1876/A1895/A2014), iPad Air 2
`
`(A1566/A1567), iPad Air 3 (A2152/A2123/A2153), iPod Touch 6th generation (A1574), and iPod
`
`Touch 7th generation (A2178) (“the ’991 Accused Products”).
`
`12. Maxell contends that Apple infringes, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, claims
`
`12 and 15 of the ’306 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the
`
`United States the following products: iPhone 6 (A1549/A1586), iPhone 6 Plus (A1522/A1524),
`
`iPhone 6s (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6s Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 7
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 29440
`
`
`
`(A1660/A1778), iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784), iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905), iPhone 8 Plus
`
`(A1864/A1897), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone XS (A1920), iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone
`
`XR (A1984), iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPad Air
`
`2 (A1566/A1567), iPad Air 3 (A2152/A2123/A2153), iPad mini 3 (A1599/A1600), iPad mini 4
`
`(A1538/A1550), iPad mini 5 (A2133/A2124/A2126), iPad Pro (10.5”) (A1701/A1709), iPad Pro
`
`(12.9”) (A1652), iPad Pro (9.7”) (A1673/A1674/A1675), iPad Pro (11”) (A1980/A2013), iPad 5th
`
`generation (A1822/A1823),
`
`iPad 6th generation (A1893/A1954),
`
`iPad 7th generation
`
`(A2200/A2198/A2197), iPad Pro (12.9”) (2nd generation) (A1670/A1671), iPad Pro (12.9”) (3rd
`
`generation) (A1876/A2014/A1895), iPod Touch 5th generation (A1509/A1421), iPod Touch 6th
`
`(A1574), iPod Touch 7th (A2178) (“the ’306 Accused Products”).
`
`13. Maxell contends that Apple infringes, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, claims
`
`1 and 14 of the ’794 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the
`
`United States the following products: iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone 11 Pro
`
`Max (A2161), iPhone XS (A1920), iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone X
`
`(A1865/A1901), iPhone 8 Plus (A1864/A1897), iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905), iPhone 7 Plus
`
`(A1661/A1784), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 6s Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone 6s
`
`(A1633/A1688), iPhone 6 Plus (A1522/A1524), iPhone 6 (A1549/A1586), iPhone SE
`
`(A1723/A1662),
`
`iPhone 5S
`
`(A1453/A1533),
`
`iPhone 5C
`
`(A1456/A1532),
`
`iPad Air
`
`(A1474/A1475), iPad mini 2 (A1489/A1490), iPad Air 2 (A1566/A1567), iPad mini 3
`
`(A1599/A1600), iPad mini 4 (A1538/A1550), iPad Pro (A1701/A1709), iPad Pro (A1584/A1652),
`
`iPad Pro (A1673/A1674/A1675), iPad Pro (A1980/A2013), iPad (5th generation) (A1822/A1823),
`
`iPad (6th generation) (A1893/A1954), iPad 7th generation (A2200/A2198/A2197), iPad Pro (2nd
`
`generation) (A1670/A1671), iPad Pro (3rd generation) (A1876/A2014/A1895), iPad Air 3
`
`11
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 29441
`
`
`
`(A2152/A2123/A2153), iPad mini 5 (A2133/A2124/A2126), iPod Touch 5th Generation
`
`(A1509/A1421), iPod Touch 6th Generation (A1574), and iPod Touch 7th Generation (A2178),
`
`Apple Watch Series
`
`5
`
`(A2092/A2093/A2094/A2095), Apple Watch Series
`
`4
`
`(A1975/A1976/A1977/A1978), Apple Watch Series 3 (A1860/A1861/A1858/A1859), Apple
`
`Watch Series 2 (A1757/A1758/A1816/A1817), Apple Watch Series 1 (A1802/A1803), and Apple
`
`Watch 1st Generation (A1553/A1554) (“the ’794 Accused Products”).
`
`14. Maxell contends that Apple literally infringes claims 7, 16, and 17 of the ’586 Patent by
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sell, and/or importing into the United States the following
`
`products: iPhone 11 (A2111), iPhone 11 Pro (A2160), iPhone 11 Pro Max (A2161), iPhone XS
`
`(A1920), iPhone XS Max (A1921), iPhone XR (A1984), iPhone X (A1865/A1901), iPhone 8 Plus
`
`(A1864/A1897),
`
`iPhone 8 (A1863/A1905),
`
`iPhone 7 Plus (A1661/A1784),
`
`iPhone 7
`
`(A1660/A1778), iPhone 6s Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone 6s (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6 Plus
`
`(A1522/A1524),
`
`iPhone 6
`
`(A1549/A1586),
`
`iPhone SE
`
`(A1723/A1662),
`
`iPhone 5s
`
`(A1453/A1533), Apple Watch Series 1
`
`(A1802/A1803), Apple Watch Series 2
`
`(A1757/A1758/A1816/A1817), Apple Watch Series 3 (A1858/A1859/1860/1861), Apple Watch
`
`Series 4 (A1975/A1976/A1977/A1978), and Apple Watch Series 5 (A2092/A2093/A2094/A2095)
`
`(“the ’586 Accused Products”).
`
`15. Maxell contends, based on the sales information Apple provided through the first quarter
`
`of 2020, that a reasonable royalty for the infringement would be $
`
` through trial.1
`
`
`1 Apple’s expert Lance Gunderson has offered a “Scenario 3” for calculating damages in his
`expert report, based on alternative dates by which Apple had notice of the asserted patents.
`Under Mr. Gunderson’s “Scenario,” a reasonable royalty for Apple’s infringement would be
`$
` through trial. This is not a belated effort by Maxell to supplement the record.
`Maxell provided this position to Apple prior to the depositions of both Ms. Mulhern (Maxell’s
`damages expert) and Mr. Gunderson (Apple’s damages expert).
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 29442
`
`
`
`Apple has provided updated sales information and further updates are expected in advance of trial.
`
`Maxell intends to revise its reasonable royalty figures to reflect such updates.
`
`16. Maxell contends that Apple cannot prove by the appropriate burden any of its affirmative
`
`defenses.
`
`17. Maxell contends Apple’s alleged infringement is willful.
`
`18. Maxell contends it is entitled to prejudgment interest.
`
`19. Maxell contends it is entitled to enhanced damages.
`
`20. Maxell contends that this is an exceptional case warranting an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`21. Maxell contends that it, and all its predecessors in interest, have complied with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287 as asserted in this case.
`
`22. Maxell contends that it is entitled to an injunction against Apple. In the alternative, Maxell
`
`contends that any denial of an injunction should be conditioned on payment of reasonable royalties
`
`for future infringement, including during any stay of an injunction pending appeal.
`
`23. Maxell denies Apple’s defenses that the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, and not
`
`infringed by Apple.
`
`24. Maxell denies that Apple is entitled to its costs, a declaration that this case is exceptional,
`
`or its attorneys’ fees.
`
`Apple’s Statement of Its Contentions
`
`Apple provides the following statement of contentions without waiver of any affirmative
`
`
`
`defense pled, any response given during discovery, or any opinion expressed by Apple’s experts.
`
`By providing these contentions, Apple does not waive any of its motions in limine, motions for
`
`summary judgment, Daubert motions, and/or motions to strike.
`
`1. Apple contends that it has not infringed any asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit, either
`
`13
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 29443
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`
`2. Apple contends that prosecution history estoppel bars Maxell’s contention that the Apple
`
`accused products infringe the ’794 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`3. Apple contends that prosecution history estoppel bars Maxell’s contention that the Apple
`
`accused products infringe the ’493 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`4. Apple contends that the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid as obvious and
`
`anticipated by the prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
`
`5. Apple contends that the asserted claims of the ’317 patent, the ’498 patent, the ’999 patent,
`
`the ’306 patent, and the ’794 patent are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`6. Apple contends that the asserted claims of the ’586 patent are invalid based on lack of
`
`written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`7. Japanese Patent Publication No. 2003-006110 to Yamazaki (“Yamazaki”) is prior art to the
`
`’438 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Apple asserts the Yamazaki reference against the
`
`’438 patent.
`
`8. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0149874 to Balfanz (“Balfanz”) is prior art
`
`to the ’438 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Apple asserts the Balfanz reference against
`
`the ’438 patent.
`
`9. U.S. Patent No. 6,871,063 to Schiffer (“Schiffer”) is prior art to the ’586 patent under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e). Apple asserts the Schiffer reference against the ’586 patent.
`
`10. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0041746 to Kirkup (“Kirkup”) is prior art to
`
`the ’586 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e). Apple asserts the Kirkup reference
`
`against the ’586 patent.
`
`14
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 29444
`
`
`
`11. “Cyberguide: A Mobile Context-Aware Tour Guide” by Gregory D. Abowd, et al. dated
`
`September 23, 1996 and re-published in Wireless Networks in October 1997 (“Abowd”) is prior
`
`art to the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent, under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b). Apple
`
`asserts the Abowd reference against the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent.
`
`12. Cyberguide software and hardware system and materials and things describing the same
`
`(“Cyberguide”) is prior art to the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent, under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a) (b) and (g). Apple asserts the CyberGuide prior art against the ’317 patent, ’498 patent,
`
`and ’999 patent.
`
`13. NavTalk product and related materials and things describing the same (“NavTalk”) is prior
`
`art to the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent, under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) and (g).
`
`Apple asserts the NavTalk prior art against the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent.
`
`14. Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH10-197277 to Maruyama et al. (“Maruyama”) is prior
`
`art to the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent, under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Apple asserts
`
`the Maruyama reference against the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent.
`
`15. U.S. Patent No. 6,067,502 to Hayashida et al. (“Hayashida”) is prior art to the ’317 patent,
`
`’498 patent, and ’999 patent, under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Apple asserts the Hayashida
`
`reference against the ’317 patent, ’498 patent, and ’999 patent.
`
`16. U.S. Patent No. 6,122,347 to Borland is prior art to the ’306 patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e). Apple asserts the Borland reference against the ’306 patent.
`
`17. U.S. Patent No. 6,763,105 to Miura is prior art to the ’306 patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e). Apple asserts the Miura reference against the ’306 patent.
`
`18. U.S. Patent No.7,565,680 to Asmussen is prior art to the ’991 patent under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Apple asserts the Asmussen reference against the ’991 patent.
`
`15
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 29445
`
`
`
`19. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0041333 to Allen is prior art to the ’991
`
`patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and (e). Apple asserts the Allen reference against the
`
`’991 patent.
`
`20. The Sony MVC-FD83 and MVC-FD88 cameras are prior art to the ’493 patent under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Apple asserts the Sony MVC-FD83/88 cameras against the ’493 patent.
`
`21. U.S. Patent No. 5,444,482 to Misawa is prior art to the ’493 patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a), (b) and (e). Apple asserts the Misawa reference against the ’493 patent.
`
`22. U.S. Patent No. 7,930,162 to Juen is prior art to the ’493 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). Apple asserts the Juen reference against the ’493 patent.
`
`23. U.S. Patent No. 6,563,535 to Anderson is prior art to the ’493 patent under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Apple asserts the Anderson reference against the ’493 patent.
`
`24. Japanese Unexamined Utility Model Publication No. U3064313 to Tagoshi is prior art to
`
`the ’794 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Apple asserts the Tagoshi reference against the
`
`’794 patent.
`
`25. U.S. Patent No. 6,363,266 to Nonogaki is prior art to the ’794 patent under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Apple asserts the Nonogaki reference against the ’794 patent.
`
`26. U.S. Patent No. 5,870,685 to Flynn is prior art to the ’794 patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a), (b) and (e). Apple asserts the Flynn reference against the ’794 patent.
`
`27. U.S. Patent No. 5,548,616 to Mucke is prior art to the ’193 patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102(a), (b) and (e). Apple asserts the Mucke reference against the ’193 patent.
`
`28. Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. JP H10-285059 to Nakayama is
`
`prior art to the ’193 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Apple asserts the Nakayama reference
`
`against the ’193 patent.
`
`16
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 29446
`
`
`
`29. U.S. Patent No. 6,236,863 to Waldroup is prior art to the ’193 patent under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). Apple asserts the Waldroup reference against the ’193 patent.
`
`30. Apple denies that Maxell has been damaged by Apple’s alleged infringement, and contends
`
`Maxell is not entitled to any monetary damages under any theory, including a reasonably royalty
`
`theory, nor is Maxell entitled to pre- and/or post-judgment interest.2
`
`31. Apple contends that its alleged infringement of the Patents-in-Suit has not been, and is not,
`
`willful.
`
`32. Apple contends that Maxell’s claims are barred under the doctrines of estoppel and waiver.
`
`33. Apple contends Maxell is not entitled to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`34. Apple contends Maxell’s claim for damages are barred in whole or in part under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287.
`
`35. Apple contends Maxell is not entitled to any attorney’s fees or costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`36. Apple contends Maxell is not entitled to injunctive relief, or any relief whatsoever.
`
`37. Apple is entitled to its costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and any
`
`other relief the Court deems appropriate.
`
`E.
`
`STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS
`
`Uncontested Facts
`
`1. Maxell filed its Original Complaint in this action on March 15, 2019.
`
`2. Maxell is a Japanese corporation with a registered place of business at 1 Koizumi,
`
`Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, Japan.
`
`3. Maxell is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maxell Holdings, Ltd.
`
`
`2 Apple objects to any belated attempt by Maxell, such as that expressed in footnote 1, to cure
`deficiencies in its damages analysis by relying on the purported opinions of Apple’s expert.
`
`17
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 551 Filed 10/26/20 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: 29447
`
`
`
`4. Apple Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California
`
`and has its principal place of business at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino California 95014.
`
`5. The ’317 Patent was issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) on
`
`June 8, 2004 and is entitled Portable terminal with the function of walking navigation.
`
`6. The subject matter recited in claims 1 and 17 of the ʼ317 Patent are entitled to an effective
`
`filing date of July 12, 1999, and have a priority date of no later than this date.
`
`7. The ’999 Patent was issued by the PTO on June 17, 2003 and is entitled Portable terminal
`
`with the function of walking navigation.
`
`8. The subject matter recited in claim 3 of the ʼ999 Patent is entitled to an effective filing date
`
`of July 12, 1999, and has a priority date of no later than this date.
`
`9. The ’498 Patent was issued by the PTO on August 6, 2002 and is entitled Portable terminal
`
`with the function of walking navigatio