throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 33666
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 33666
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 33667
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`










`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Apple’s Sealed Motion to Strike and Renewed Motion for
`
`Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 664) and Plaintiff Maxell’s Sealed Response (Docket No.
`
`667). The Court heard argument on the motion on Friday, March 19, 2021. Docket No. 677. For
`
`the reasons set forth below, Apple’s motion is GRANTED.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`On May 7, 2020, Maxell served the initial report of its damages expert, Carla Mulhern, that
`
`used the “start dates” for damages-related sales as follows: July 1, 2013, for the ’317, ’999, ’498
`
`and ’493 patents and May 17, 2018, for the ’438 and ’794 patents. Docket No. 667 at 1. Later, on
`
`June 23, 2020, Maxell served Ms. Mulhern’s supplemental disclosures, which contemplated notice
`
`dates of December 3, 2013, for the ’317 patent and May 17, 2018, for the other five patents. Id. at
`
`2. The dates in Ms. Mulhern’s supplemental disclosures were based on Apple’s position regarding
`
`notice dates and mirrored the dates used by Apple’s damages expert Lance Gunderson. Id.
`
`In June 2020, Apple moved for partial summary judgment limiting Maxell’s claim for
`
`damages for the ’317, ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents for lack of notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 33668
`
`Docket No. 368. In that motion, Apple argued that Maxell’s (and thus Ms. Mulhern’s) July 1,
`
`2013 start date for damages was based on
`
`
`
`that could not, as a matter of law, provide actual notice of infringement. Id. at
`
`8–10. Apple’s motion also stipulated that actual notice of infringement of the ’317 patent occurred
`
`on December 3, 2013, and for the other five patents-in-suit on May 17, 2018. Id. at 10. In its
`
`response, Maxell disputed Apple’s stipulated notice dates, arguing that
`
`
`
`
`
` that Apple’s motion did not address; therefore, fact issues regarding the date of actual notice
`
`remained for the jury. Docket No. 420 at 10.
`
`On November 17, 2020, the Court granted-in-part Apple’s motion, finding that the June
`
`letter did not constitute notice under § 287(a) as a matter of law. Docket No. 586 at 26. But the
`
`Court could not determine that Apple’s stipulated dates could constitute actual notice of
`
`infringement as a matter of law. Docket No. 586 at 26. Accordingly, Maxell would be permitted
`
`to introduce evidence that actual notice occurred after June 25, 2013, but before December 3, 2013,
`
`and May 17, 2018. Id.
`
`
`
`After the Court’s ruling, Maxell did not provide Apple with an updated damages figure or
`
`any supplemental disclosures from Ms. Mulhern until February 27, 2021, when the parties
`
`exchanged drafts of the joint pretrial order. Docket No. 667 at 4. A footnote in Maxell’s statement
`
`of contentions described its basis for its revised
`
` damages figure: “Under Maxell’s
`
`notice scenario (as adjusted by the Court’s order on summary judgment (D.I. 586)), Apple had
`
`notice of its infringement of the ’317, ’999, ’498, and ’493 patents by at least December 2013, and
`
`of the remaining patents by no later than May 2018.” Docket No. 637 at 10 n.2. Maxell noted that
`
`this figure was revised “in light of (1) amended notice dates due to the Court’s order on summary
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 33669
`
`judgment, (2) the narrowed claims as a result of the Court’s order to narrow the case for trial, and
`
`(3) updated sales information produced by Apple.” Id. at 35–36.
`
`At the pretrial conference, Apple objected to Maxell’s December 3, 2013 basis for its
`
`updated damages figure, arguing that the
`
` demand was never disclosed before
`
`February 27, 2021, and reflected undisclosed opinions of Ms. Mulhern. Docket No. 664 at 2. In
`
`light of Apple’s objection, the Court ordered Maxell to present Ms. Mulhern for a limited
`
`deposition regarding her revised damages calculations, which took place on March 15, 2021.
`
`Docket No. 664 at 2. Maxell also provided Apple with supplemental disclosures from Ms.
`
`Mulhern supporting her revised damages figure on March 10, 2021, following the pretrial
`
`conference. Id.; Docket No. 664-1, Ex. A (“Updated Mulhern Exhibits”).
`
`II.
`
`Apple’s Motion and Maxell’s Response
`
`On March 16, 2021, Apple filed the instant motion. Docket No. 664. In its motion, Apple
`
`does not dispute the revision of Ms. Mulhern’s damages calculations based on the narrowing of
`
`the case or Apple’s additional sales data. Id. at 3. But Apple argues that any revision of Ms.
`
`Mulhern’s damages figure based on the December 3, 2013 date for the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents
`
`should be prohibited as untimely and prejudicial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e) and
`
`37(c)(1). Id. at 4–5. Apple further argues that Maxell’s proffered evidence—
`
`
`
`—cannot constitute actual
`
`notice for the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents as a matter of law. Id. at 7. Thus, Apple renews its
`
`summary judgment motion to limit Maxell’s damages based on lack of notice under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287(a). Id.
`
`Maxell responds that it did not immediately revise Ms. Mulhern’s damages calculations
`
`based on the Court’s order because the trial had been reset to March 2021 and“[s]ome narrowing
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 33670
`
`of the case was expected.” Docket No. 667 at 3. Maxell argues that it was therefore more efficient
`
`to postpone updating the damages total based on the Court’s exclusion of the June 2013 letter until
`
`all issues impacting the damages total were resolved (i.e., dropping asserted claims and receiving
`
`updated sales information). Id. at 4. Those issues, Maxell contends, were resolved by February
`
`9, 2021, and so Maxell provided its updated damages total to Apple a few weeks later on February
`
`27, 2021. Id. Maxell argues that Apple’s motion mischaracterizes the updates made to the
`
`damages figure, as there was “no change to the damages theory, the royalty rates, the damages
`
`methodology, or Mr. Mulhern’s opinions on those matters.” Id.
`
`Maxell also contends that Apple has known of its reliance on the December email for notice
`
`for almost two years, as Maxell produced it in 2019 and identified it in several interrogatory
`
`responses that year. Id. At the hearing on Apple’s motion, Maxell confirmed that it had no
`
`evidence other than the December 2013 email to support a December 3, 2013 notice date for the
`
`’999, ’498 and ’493 patents. But Maxell argued that the December 2013 email is sufficient to
`
`convey actual notice for the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents under the Federal Circuit’s guidance in
`
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The parties do not dispute that the
`
`December 2013 email provided notice for the ’317 patent. The dispute thus centers around whether
`
`the December 2013 email and surrounding circumstances provide notice as to the other three
`
`patents (the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents).
`
`III. The December 2013 Email
`
`The relevant portions of the December 2013 email read as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 33671
`
`
`Docket No. 664-3, Ex. C at 2. Attached to the email are claims charts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is
`
`This
`
` Id. at 3–30. Also attached
`
` Id. at 31–33.
`
`r except for the addition of
`
`several patents not asserted here. See Docket No. 664-2, Ex. B at 9–12.
`
`IV. Analysis
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a court that enters any order or decision
`
`adjudicating “fewer than all of the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties.
`
`. . may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the
`
`parties’ rights and liabilities.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). Accordingly, interlocutory orders, such as
`
`grants of partial summary judgment, are “left within the plenary power of the court that rendered
`
`them to afford such relief from them as justice requires.” McKay v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 751
`
`F.3d 694, 701 (5th Cir. 2014). “[T]he trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision for
`
`any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or
`
`clarification of the substantive law.” Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d
`
`167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069,
`
`1075 n.14 (5th Cir. 1994).
`
`In light of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and the prevailing law, the Court considers
`
`Apple’s renewed motion for summary judgment as a motion for reconsideration. The Court
`
`previously declined to find Apple’s stipulated notice dates were correct as a matter of law because
`
`Apple had not carried its burden of demonstrating that no genuine issues of material fact remained
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 33672
`
`regarding those dates. Docket No. 586 at 26. Indeed, the Court held that Maxell would be
`
`permitted to introduce evidence that actual notice occurred at a date after June 25, 2013, but before
`
`December 3, 2013, and May 17, 2018. Id. In its initial summary judgment response, Maxell
`
`contended that multiple pieces of evidence supported notice dates other than
`
`
`
`
`
`. Docket No. 420 at 10. But Maxell’s
`
`decision less than a month before trial to, for the first time, put forward a December 3, 2013 “start
`
`date” for damages for the ’9991, ’498 and ’493 patents has now placed a spotlight on its evidentiary
`
`basis for proving notice as of that date. Having reviewed the December 2013 email, Maxell’s sole
`
`basis for actual notice on December 3, 2013, the Court must reconsider its previous ruling: the
`
`December email cannot constitute actual notice under § 287 of Apple’s alleged infringement of
`
`the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents as a matter of law. Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact
`
`remains for the jury.
`
`“Actual notice requires the affirmative communication of a specific charge of infringement
`
`by a specific accused product or device.” Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Casting Co., 24 F.3d
`
`178, 187 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A letter that merely communicates “notice of the patent’s existence”
`
`will not satisfy this requirement. Id. “The purpose of the actual notice requirement is met when
`
`the recipient is notified, with sufficient specificity, that the patent holder believes that the recipient
`
`of the notice may be an infringer.” SRI Int’l., Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc., 127 F.3d 1462,
`
`1469–70 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`
`1 The first infringing sale date for the ’999 patent is September 2015; however, Maxell contends that Apple had notice
`of its infringement of the ’999 patent on December 3, 2013. See Docket No. 664-1, Ex. A at 6 (Updated Mulhern Ex.
`10).
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 33673
`
`The Court must grant summary judgment as to the December 2013 email for the same
`
`reasons it previously did for the June 2013 letter—the December 2013 email cannot reasonably be
`
`construed as “communicat[ing] a charge of infringement” as to the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents.
`
`Id. (citing Amsted, 24 F.3d at 187); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`5:01-CV-344, 2004 WL 5268125, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2004). Apple does not dispute that
`
`the claim chart referenced in and attached to the December 2013 email
`
`
`
`. Docket No. 664 at 8.
`
`. Docket No. 664-3, Ex. C at 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`. And the content of the email itself is even more scant
`
`than that of the June 2013 letter, which the Court previously found fell within the realm of
`
`“informational” letters that are insufficient to provide notice. Docket No. 586 at 26 (citing Amsted,
`
`24 F.3d at 187).
`
`Maxell’s only support for a finding that the December 2013 email constitutes actual notice
`
`for the ’999, ’498 or ’493 patents is a list of patents attached to the email. Docket No. 664–3, Ex.
`
`C at 31. But this list of patents is identical to that attached to the June 2013 letter that the Court
`
`previously found inadequate. Docket No. 586 at 26; see Docket No. 664-2, Ex. B at 9–12. Mere
`
`communication of a patent’s existence cannot constitute actual notice. Amsted, 24 F.3d at 187.
`
`Accordingly, the December 2013 email cannot reasonably be found to communicate actual notice
`
`of infringement as to the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents.
`
`Maxell’s reliance on Gart is unavailing. 254 F.3d 1334. There, the Federal Circuit
`
`examined two letters that the plaintiff, Gart, contended supported actual notice of defendant
`
`Logitech’s infringement. Id. at 1346–47. The first letter “included a specific reference to claims
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 33674
`
`7 and 8 of the ’165 patent, specific reference to Logitech’s selling of the TRACKMAN VISTA,
`
`and noted that Logitech ‘may wish to have [its] patent counsel examine the . . . patent . . . to
`
`determine whether a non-exclusive license under the patent is needed.’ ” Id. at 1346. The court
`
`found that this letter constituted actual notice that Logitech’s TRACKMAN VISTA product was
`
`infringing claims 7 and 8 of the ’165 patent. Id. The second letter at issue was more cursory; it
`
`again identified ’165 patent, but merely indicated that “Logitech might find that patent
`
`‘particularly interesting’ relative to [its] TRACKMAN VISTA and TRACKMAN MARBLE
`
`products.” Id. The court held that “[s]tanding alone, this letter would not constitute effective
`
`actual notice.” Id. But because the previous letter had constituted actual notice as to claims 7 and
`
`8 of the ’165 patent, the second letter viewed “in conjunction with” the first letter could constitute
`
`actual notice under § 287. Id. at 1347.
`
`The factual situation here is significantly different than in Gart. First—and most
`
`critically—the Federal Circuit held in that case that the first letter sufficiently provided actual
`
`notice of infringement of the patent at issue. Id. at 1346. The opposite is true here. The Court
`
`previously found that the June 2013 letter could not constitute actual notice of any of the patents-
`
`in-suit as a matter of law. Docket No. 586 at 26. Thus, reliance on the June 2013 letter “in
`
`conjunction with” the December 2013 email, as Gart would allow, does not aid Maxell. Gart, 254
`
`F.3d at 1347. Because the June 2013 letter does not constitute actual notice of Apple’s
`
`infringement of any of the patents-in-suit, it cannot bolster the inadequate December 2013 email.
`
`Second, Gart does not support extending proper notice as to one patent to any patents
`
`mentioned in the same communication. The court’s opinion concerned notice as to additional
`
`accused products where a specific claim of infringement of the same patent had previously been
`
`established for other products. Id. at 1347. Because the prior letter had reasonably apprised
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 33675
`
`Logitech that Gart believed the TRACKMAN VISTA products infringed claims 7 and 8 of the
`
`’165 patent, the second letter, which added mention of the TRACKMAN MARBLE products,
`
`reasonably apprised Logitech that Gart believed those products, too, were infringing. Id. The list
`
`of patents attached to the December 2013 email did not attempt to tie those patents to specific
`
`claims or specific products beyond those patents that were charted in the preceding pages. See
`
`Docket No. 664-3, Ex. C. at 31–33. Maxell’s interpretation would stretch the Federal Circuit’s
`
`analysis to cover any patents that may have been merely mentioned alongside a more specific
`
`communication of infringement. Under Maxell’s argument, because the December 2013 email
`
`and associated claim charts gave Apple notice of its infringement of the ’317 patent, it also
`
`provided notice as to the nearly three dozen other patents listed, the ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents
`
`among them. Because the question of notice “must focus on the action of the patentee,” this
`
`application would find that a patent holder who sends a specific communication of infringement
`
`as to one patent and also attaches a list of patents would have provided notice under § 287 as to
`
`every patent listed—whether it was two or 200. Gart, 254 F.3d at 1346 (citing Amsted, 24 F.3d
`
`at 187). The court’s analysis in Gart does not extend that far and thus cannot cure the deficiencies
`
`of Maxell’s December 2013 email.
`
`Accordingly, Apple’s motion, reviewed as a motion for reconsideration, is GRANTED.
`
`The December 2013 email may not be used as evidence that Apple had actual notice of
`
`infringement on December 3, 2013, for any patent-at-issue other than the ’317 patent. Ms.
`
`Mulhern may not rely on a “start date” of December 3, 2013, for calculating damages for the ’999,
`
`’498 and ’493 patents.
`
`It is further ORDERED that 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.
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 691-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 33676
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 10
`
`.
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 20th day of March, 2021.
`
`

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