Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 33235
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 33235
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 33235
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 33236
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`SEALED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Order
`
`Granting-in-Part and Denying-in-Part Maxell’s Motion to Strike Portions of Apple’s Rebuttal
`
`Expert Reports Based on Untimely Claim Construction Positions (Docket No. 597). The motion
`
`has been fully briefed.1
`
`In its order (Docket No. 586), the Court resolved the parties’ dispute regarding language
`
`from claim 5 of the ’493 patent, which recites an electric camera. Id. at 49–50. Specifically, claim
`
`5(d) of the ’493 patent recites:
`
`Wherein when recording an image in a static image mode, the signal processing
`unit generates the image signals by using all signal charges accumulated in all N
`number of vertically arranged pixel lines of the image sensing device, to provide N
`pixel lines . . .
`
`’493 patent, claim 5. The parties had disputed whether “N number of vertically arranged pixel
`
`lines” must be every vertically arranged pixel line, or whether it can be a subset. Docket No. 586
`
`at 49. Maxell moved to strike the opinions of Apple’s expert for the ’493 patent, Dr. Bovik, who
`
`1 Maxell filed a response (Docket No. 607), Apple filed a reply (Docket No. 609), and Maxell filed a sur-reply (Docket
`No. 613).
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 33237
`
`opined that the term “N number of vertically arranged pixel lines” must include every vertically
`
`arranged pixel line.
`
`Id. The Court first noted that
`
`, making Dr. Bovik’s attempt at limiting the scope of “N number of vertically
`
`arranged pixel lines” based on preferred embodiments in the specification a belated claim
`
`construction dispute that Apple could have—and should have—raised during claim construction.
`
`Id. at 49–50. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that Apple’s interpretation of “N number of
`
`vertically arranged pixel lines” unduly limited and contradicted the plain language of the claim
`
`term and struck paragraphs 27, 59–66, 71–79, 81–86, 92, 127 and 205–208 of Dr. Bovik’s rebuttal
`
`expert report. Id. at 50.
`
`Apple now seeks clarification as to whether the Court’s ruling striking Dr. Bovik’s
`
`opinions also extends to what it argues is “a wholly separate noninfringement theory” contained
`
`within the stricken paragraphs. Docket No. 597 at 3. Specifically, Apple asks whether Dr. Bovik’s
`
`opinions about whether the accused products satisfy the requirement of using “all signal charges”
`
`accumulated in the vertically arranged pixel lines to record a static image was stricken by the
`
`Court’s order. Id. at 2. Apple contends that while Dr. Bovik discusses the “all signal charges”
`
`requirement alongside his opinions regarding “N number of vertically arranged pixel lines,” the
`
`two requirements—and Dr. Bovik’s opinions on them—are discrete. Id. at 3–4. Because Maxell’s
`
`motion to strike did not specifically address Dr. Bovik’s “all signal charges” opinions and the
`
`Court’s order did not specifically mention those opinions, Apple now asks the Court whether those
`
`opinions were meaningfully excluded. Id. at 4–5.
`
`Maxell responds that Apple’s motion is not asking for clarification of the Court’s order,
`
`but rather for reconsideration of arguments already presented in Apple’s motion for partial
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 33238
`
`summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’493 patent. Docket No. 607 at 3. Maxell contends
`
`that Apple has never presented the “all signal charges” requirement as an independent
`
`noninfringement theory prior to this motion. Id. at 4–5. In any case, Maxell argues that Dr.
`
`Bovik’s “all signal charges” opinions and the stricken “all N number of vertically arranged pixel
`
`lines” opinions stem from the same belated, incorrect claim construction argument—that claim
`
`element 5(d) requires “all pixels (i.e. all rows and all columns) of the image sensor to be used for
`
`generating a still image.” Id. at 5 (quoting Docket No. 597-1, Ex. A (Bovik Reb. Rpt.) ¶ 61). This
`
`argument, Maxell contends, was rejected by the Court in its order denying partial summary
`
`judgment of noninfringement of the ’493 patent. Id. at 6 (citing Docket No. 586 at 23).
`
`The Court agrees with Apple and thus clarifies its prior ruling. Dr. Bovik’s rebuttal expert
`
`report describes how claim element 5(d) requires the recited camera to generate image signals
`
`using: (1) “all signal charges accumulated in” (2) “all N number of vertically arranged pixel
`
`lines[.]” Docket No. 597-1, Ex. A (Bovik Reb. Rpt. ¶ 61). The “vertically arranged pixel lines”
`
`refers to rows of individual pixels:
`
`See, e.g., ’493 Patent at 4:66–5:6.
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 33239
`
`
`
`The Court previously struck Dr. Bovik’s opinion claiming that the term “N number of
`
`vertically arranged pixel lines” must include every vertically arranged pixel line. Docket No. 586
`
`at 50. This includes his improper conclusion requiring the use of all pixels in an image sensor to
`
`record a static image—i.e., all pixels in all rows and all columns. Id. But neither Maxell’s motion
`
`nor the Court’s order addressed Dr. Bovik’s opinion that claim element 5(d) requires the use of
`
`“all signal charges” accumulated in the N number of vertically arranged pixel lines. See id. That
`
`is a separate requirement of the claim. If Apple wishes to have its expert opine that the accused
`
`products do not meet the “all signal charges” requirement, the Court will not prohibit that
`
`testimony.
`
`But Dr. Bovik may not opine that an accused product must record still images “using all
`
`pixels of the camera’s image sensor”—i.e., all pixels in all rows and all columns—because such
`
`an interpretation relies on Dr. Bovik’s stricken opinion requiring every vertically arranged pixel
`
`line to be used. Docket No. 586 at 23.
`
`In clarifying its prior order, the Court does not, however, adopt Apple’s contention that “all
`
`signal charges” means “all pixels” in a pixel line must be used. Docket No. 597 at 4. The plain
`
`language of claim 5 treats the phrase “signal charge” as distinct from “pixel.” As the Court has
`
`already noted, factual disagreements exist on whether the “all signal charges” claim element is met
`
`by the accused products. Docket No. 586 at 23.
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 663-1 Filed 03/16/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 33240
`
` Accordingly, a fact issue exists for the jury on which the parties may present
`
`evidence.
`
`.
`
`The Court therefore clarifies its previous order granting-in-part and denying-in-part
`
`Maxell’s motion to strike portions of Apple’s rebuttal expert reports based on untimely claim
`
`construction positions (Docket No. 586). The Court did not strike Dr. Bovik’s opinions contained
`
`in paragraphs 27, 61, 64, 66, 71–79, 81, 86, and 206–207 of his rebuttal expert report regarding
`
`“all signal charges.” Accordingly, Apple’s motion for clarification (Docket No. 597) is
`
`GRANTED. Within 14 days of the issuance of this order, the parties shall jointly submit a
`
`proposed redacted version so that a public version can be made available.
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of February, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`________________________________________________________________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`
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
