Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 657 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 33184
`
`
`
`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 NOTICE REGARDING PRETRIAL OBJECTIONS
`
`Following Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Maxell”) and Defendant Apple Inc.’s
`
`
`
`(“Apple”) joint submission of their pretrial objections on March 1, 2021 (D.I. 639), the parties
`
`continued to meet and confer regarding exhibit objections. As a result of such meet and confer, the
`
`parties state that they seek to present at least the following categories of exhibit objections to the
`
`Court at the Pretrial Conference:
`
`Maxell Objections to Apple’s Proposed Trial Exhibits (D.I. 639 at Ex. A)
`
` DX 69, 70: Maxell objects to these exhibits, which are physical samples of MVC-FD88
`cameras, based on at least authentication and foundation grounds.
`
` DX 130, 131, 134, 135, 470: Maxell objects to these exhibits, which consist of
`, based on at least relevance
`
`and prejudice grounds.
`
` DX 311-316: Maxell objects to these exhibits, which are images of a prior art device taken
`by Apple’s expert, based on at least the exhibits having not been timely produced, being
`outside the scope of expert reports, and as prejudicial.
`
` DX 472: Maxell objects to this exhibit, which is a 1983 article entitled “Hitachi Pleads
`Guilty, Apologizes in Industrial Espionage,” based primarily on relevance and prejudice
`grounds.
`
`Apple Objections to Maxell’s Proposed Trial Exhibits (D.I. 639 at Ex. C)
`
` PX 56, 63-65, 67-68, 70, 78: Apple objects to these exhibits, which are
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 657 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 33185
`
`
`
`
`, based primarily
`on prejudice, lack of personal knowledge of the sponsoring witness, and FRE 408 grounds.
`Apple also objects to these exhibits on hearsay grounds to the extent they are offered for
`the truth of the matters asserted therein (i.e., alleged infringement by Apple). Apple further
`objects to PX 56 based on the Court’s ruling on Apple’s MIL #2 (Dkt. No. 634 at 14-15)
`regarding the ZTE verdict. The parties intend to continue to meet and confer on this issue
`prior to the Pretrial Conference which may narrow the scope of the disputed exhibits.
`
` PX 57, 58, 59: Apple objects to these exhibits, which are or relate to
`
`
`
` based primarily on prejudice, lack of personal
`knowledge of the sponsoring witness, and FRE 408 grounds. Apple also objects to
`introduction of these exhibits based on the Court’s summary judgment ruling (Dkt. No.
`586 at 24-26) that
`
` Dkt. No. 586 at 26. The parties
`intend to continue to meet and confer on this issue prior to the Pretrial Conference which
`may narrow the scope of the disputed exhibits.
`
` PX 73-74: Apple objects to these exhibits, which relate to
`
`
`, based primarily
`on relevance and prejudice grounds. PX 80, 81, 83, 84, 86: Apple objects to these exhibits,
`which are or relate to
`
`
`
`, based primarily on relevance and prejudice grounds.
`
` PX 87-89, 90, 97-102: Apple objects to these exhibits, which are or relate to
`
`, based primarily on relevance and prejudice
`
`grounds.
`
` PX 226: Apple objects to this exhibit, which is a 2012 article entitled, “Apple Maps: Tim
`Cook says he is ‘extremely sorry,’” based primarily on relevance, prejudice, and hearsay
`grounds. Apple also objects to this exhibit based on the Court’s ruling on Apple’s MIL #6
`(Dkt No. 634 at 18).
`
` PX 794: Apple objects to this exhibit, which is a transcript of proceedings in Apple Inc. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C-11-01846, United States District Court Northern
`District of California, San Jose Division, based primarily on relevance, prejudice, and
`hearsay grounds. Apple also objects to this exhibit based on the Court’s ruling on Apple’s
`MIL #2.
`
`The parties intend to continue the meet and confer process prior to the Pretrial Conference. As a
`
`result, the parties may identify additional issues to be raised at the Pretrial Conference.
`
`The parties continue to believe that it would be more efficient to address certain, individual
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 657 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 33186
`
`
`
`exhibit objections and objections to deposition designations during trial once it is more clear which
`
`exhibits and designations will be used.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 9, 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
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`agelsleichter@mayerbrown.com
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 657 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 33187
`
`
`
`Dated: March 9, 2021
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted
`
`By: /s/ Mark D. Fowler
`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: 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)
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 657 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 33188
`
`
`
`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
`Houston, TX 77002-5005
`Tel: 713.425.8490
`Fax: 713.300.6012
`
`Paul Steadman (Pro Hac Vice)
`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
`
`Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 657 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 33189
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served this 9th day of March, 2021, with a copy of this document via
`electronic mail pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(d).
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`