Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 32004
`
`
`
`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 STIPULATION REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCTS FOR TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. and Defendant Apple Inc. enter this Joint Stipulation
`
`
`
`Regarding Representative Products for Trial (“Stipulation”) pursuant to the Court’s Order
`
`regarding narrowing issues for trial (Dkt. No. 619). Maxell and Apple hereby stipulate and agree
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This Stipulation and the information it contains will be used only for purposes of
`
`narrowing the issues for trial in this case and shall not be used for any other purpose in any such
`
`other proceeding, and shall not be binding on Apple, Maxell, or any other party for any other
`
`purpose or in any other judicial or administrative proceeding.1 Neither Apple nor Maxell waive
`
`the right to object to the admissibility of this Stipulation in any other proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`This Stipulation does not constitute, and will not be offered or construed as, any
`
`admission by Apple that it is liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, which Apple
`
`specifically denies. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as an admission by Apple that
`
`the products identified in this Stipulation infringe any claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317 (the
`
`
`1 Maxell and Apple dispute what, if anything, will be presented to the jury regarding the stipulation, and the parties
`intend to raise the issue at the pretrial conference.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 STIPULATION REGARDING REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCTS FOR TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. and Defendant Apple Inc. enter this Joint Stipulation
`
`
`
`Regarding Representative Products for Trial (“Stipulation”) pursuant to the Court’s Order
`
`regarding narrowing issues for trial (Dkt. No. 619). Maxell and Apple hereby stipulate and agree
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This Stipulation and the information it contains will be used only for purposes of
`
`narrowing the issues for trial in this case and shall not be used for any other purpose in any such
`
`other proceeding, and shall not be binding on Apple, Maxell, or any other party for any other
`
`purpose or in any other judicial or administrative proceeding.1 Neither Apple nor Maxell waive
`
`the right to object to the admissibility of this Stipulation in any other proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`This Stipulation does not constitute, and will not be offered or construed as, any
`
`admission by Apple that it is liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, which Apple
`
`specifically denies. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as an admission by Apple that
`
`the products identified in this Stipulation infringe any claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317 (the
`
`
`1 Maxell and Apple dispute what, if anything, will be presented to the jury regarding the stipulation, and the parties
`intend to raise the issue at the pretrial conference.
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 32005
`
`
`
`“’317 Patent”), 6,580,999 (the “’999 Patent”), 8,339,493 (the “’493 Patent”), 7,116,438 (the
`
`“’438 Patent”), 6,329,794 (the “’794 Patent”), and 6,430,498 (the “’498 Patent”) (collectively the
`
`“Asserted Patents”).
`
`3.
`
`Representative Products for the ’317 Patent. With respect to the ’317 patent,
`
`Maxell accuses of infringement certain iPhones (models 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)),
`
`iPads (models 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 the Apple Watch Series 5
`
`(model numbers A2092, A2093, A2094, A2095). For purposes of Maxell’s allegations of
`
`infringement of the ’317 patent only, Maxell and Apple agree that, with respect to the structure,
`
`function, and operation of the accused products:
`
`a.
`
`The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of all iPhones
`
`accused of infringing the ’317 patent;
`
`b.
`
`The iPad 7th Generation executing iOS 13 (A2200) is representative of all
`
`iPads accused of infringing the ’317 patent; and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 32006
`
`
`
`c.
`
`The Apple Watch 5 executing (watchOS 6) (A2094) is representative of
`
`all Apple Watches accused of infringing the ’317 patent.
`
`4.
`
`Representative Products for the ’498 Patent. With respect to the ’498 patent,
`
`Maxell accuses of infringement certain iPhones (models 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))
`
`and iPads (models 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)). For purposes of Maxell’s
`
`allegations of infringement of the ’498 patent only, Maxell and Apple agree that, with respect to
`
`the structure, function, and operation of the accused products:
`
`a.
`
`The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of all iPhones
`
`accused of infringing the ’498 patent; and
`
`b.
`
`The iPad 7th Generation executing iOS 13 (A2200) is representative of all
`
`iPads accused of infringing the ’498 patent.
`
`5.
`
`Representative Products for the ’999 Patent. With respect to the ’999 patent,
`
`Maxell accuses of infringement certain iPhones (models iPhone 6S (A1633/A1688), iPhone 6S
`
`Plus (A1634/A1687), iPhone SE (A1723/A1662), iPhone 7 (A1660/A1778), iPhone 7 Plus
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 32007
`
`
`
`(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)) and iPads (models 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 the Apple Watch Series 5 (model numbers
`
`A2092, A2093, A2094, A2095). For purposes of Maxell’s allegations of infringement of the
`
`’999 patent only, Maxell and Apple agree that, with respect to the structure, function, and
`
`operation of the accused products:
`
`a.
`
`The iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of all iPhones
`
`accused of infringing the ’999 patent;
`
`b.
`
`The iPad 7th Generation executing iOS 13 (A2200) is representative of all
`
`iPads accused of infringing the ’999 patent; and
`
`c.
`
`The Apple Watch 5 executing (watchOS 6) (A2094) is representative of
`
`all Apple Watches accused of infringing the ’999 patent.
`
`6.
`
`Representative Products for the ’493 Patent. With respect to the ’493 patent,
`
`Maxell accuses of infringement certain iPhones (models 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), iPhone 5c
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 32008
`
`
`
`(A1456/A1532)). For purposes of Maxell’s allegations of infringement of the ’493 patent only,
`
`Maxell and Apple agree that, with respect to the structure, function, and operation of the accused
`
`products:
`
`a.
`
`The iPhone 8 executing iOS 11 (A1863/A1905) is representative of all
`
`iPhones accused of infringing the ’493 patent.
`
`7.
`
`Representative Products for the ’794 Patent. With respect to the ’794 patent,
`
`Maxell accuses of infringement certain iPhones (models 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)), iPads (models 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 (A2152/A2123/A2153), iPad mini 5
`
`(A2133/A2124/A2126)), the iPod Touch (models iPod Touch 5th Generation (A1509/A1421),
`
`iPod Touch 6th Generation (A1574), and iPod Touch 7th Generation (A2178)), and the Apple
`
`Watch (models 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 32009
`
`
`
`Apple Watch 1st Generation (A1553/A1554)). For purposes of Maxell’s allegations of
`
`infringement of the ’794 patent only, Maxell and Apple agree that, with respect to the structure,
`
`function, and operation of the accused products:
`
`a.
`
`The iPhone 8 executing iOS 11 (A1863/A1905) is representative of all
`
`iPhones accused of infringing the ’794 patent with the exception of iPhone
`
`11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) being representative of products
`
`implementing the accused functionality of Express Transit Mode;
`
`b.
`
`The iPad 6th Generation executing iOS 11 (A1893/A1954) and the iPad
`
`7th Generation executing iOS 13 (A2200/A2198/A2197) are equivalent
`
`for purposes of the ’794 patent, and are both representative of all iPads
`
`and iPod Touches accused of infringing the ’794 patent; and
`
`c.
`
`The Apple Watch Series 5 LTE GPS executing watchOS 6
`
`(A2094/A2095) is representative of all Apple Watches accused of
`
`infringing the ’794 patent.
`
`8.
`
`Representative Products for the ’438 Patent. With respect to the ’438 patent,
`
`Maxell accuses of infringement certain iPhones (models 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)), iPads (models 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),
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 32010
`
`
`
`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
`
`generation) (A1876/A2014/A1895)), the iPod Touch (models iPod Touch 5th Generation
`
`(A1509/A1421), iPod Touch 6th Generation (A1574), and iPod Touch 7th Generation (A2178)),
`
`and the Apple Watch (models Apple Watch Series 5 (A2092/A2093/A2094/A2095), Series 4
`
`(A1975/A1976/A1977/A1978), Series 3 (A1860/A1861/A1858/A1859), Series 1
`
`(A1802/A1803)). Given that infringement of the ’438 patent requires multiple devices, for
`
`purposes of Maxell’s allegations of infringement of the ’438 patent only, Maxell and Apple
`
`agree that, with respect to the structure, function, and operation of the accused products:
`
`a.
`
`iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) used in conjunction with any iOS
`
`device (e.g., iPad Mini executing iOS 8 (A1432) or iPhone 8
`
`(A1863/A1905) or iPod Touch 6th generation (A1574)) is representative
`
`of all Apple products accused of infringing the ’438 patent by
`
`implementing AirDrop;
`
`b.
`
`iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) used in conjunction with Apple
`
`Watch Series 5 executing watchOS 6 (A2094) is representative of all
`
`Apple iPhones accused of infringing the ’438 patent by pairing with an
`
`Apple Watch;
`
`c.
`
`Apple Watch Series 5 executing watchOS 6 (A2094)used in conjunction
`
`with iPhone 11 executing iOS 13 (A2111) is representative of Apple
`
`Watches accused of infringing the ’438 patent by pairing with an Apple
`
`iPhone.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 32011
`
`
`
`9.
`
`For purposes of proving any alleged infringement only, a representative version of
`
`an operations system (e.g., iOS 13, watchOS 6) includes any of the subversions thereof (e.g., iOS
`13.1, 13.2, watchOS 6.1, 6.2).
`IT IS SO STIPULATED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 10, 2021
`
`/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
`Baldine B. Paul
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Saqib J. Siddiqui
`Bryan C. Nese
`William J. Barrow
`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
`
`/s/ Mark D. Fowler
`Harry L. Gillam, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 07921800
`Melissa Richards Smith
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 32012
`
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`agelsleichter@mayerbrown.com
`cbakewell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda Streff Bonner
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 782-0600
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`asbonner@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 625 Filed 02/10/21 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 32013
`
`
`
` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served this 10th day of February, 2021 with a copy of this document
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
