Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 26926
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`Civil No. 3:14cv757 (REP)(DJN)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et
`al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT
`DR. MADISETTI FROM PROVIDING CERTAIN OPINIONS UNDISCLOSED IN HIS
`EXPERT REPORTS
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 26927
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ...........................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony
`Regarding Infringement of Claims 27-29 of the ’602 Patent Under the
`Doctrine of Equivalents ...........................................................................................2
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony
`Regarding Infringement of Certain Limitations of the ’938 Patent Under
`the Doctrine of Equivalents .....................................................................................3
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony about
`the Values Contained in Registers Related to the ’602 Patent and How
`These Values are Determined by NVIDIA Source Code ........................................5
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering any Testimony
`Regarding NVIDIA’s Use of
` in the
`Accused Products .....................................................................................................6
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering any Testimony on
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness with Respect to the ’602
`Patent Besides Commercial Success and Copying by Others .................................8
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony on any
`Nexus between Commercial Success and the ’938 Patent Invention ......................9
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................9
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 26928
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc.,
`690 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.,
`515 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Zee Co. v. Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C.,
`547 F. App’x 166 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 2013) .................................................................................. 3
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i) .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 26929
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Samsung”), have provided expert reports from their technical expert, Dr. Vijay
`
`Madisetti, to support their infringement and invalidity claims as to the ’602 and ’938 patents.
`
`Dr. Madisetti provided three expert reports during this litigation: (1) an opening report
`
`on infringement of the ’602 and ’938 patents dated 9/18/2015 (“Madisetti Infringement Rpt.”);
`
`(2) a report in support of the damages report of Samsung’s damages expert, Catharine Lawton,
`
`dated 10/2/2015 (“Madisetti Damages Rpt.”); and (3) a rebuttal report on validity of the ’602 and
`
`’938 patents dated 10/9/2015 (“Madisetti Rbt. Rpt.”). These reports failed to disclose opinions –
`
`or adequate bases for opinions – regarding certain issues in dispute between the parties.
`
`Samsung has not disputed – and cannot dispute – that these opinions and their bases are not
`
`disclosed in any of Dr. Madisetti’s three expert reports. Nonetheless, Samsung refuses to
`
`confirm that Dr. Madisetti will not offer opinions on these issues at trial. Accordingly,
`
`Defendants move in limine to preclude Dr. Madisetti from offering such testimony at trial.
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`A testifying expert is required to provide an expert report that sets forth “a complete
`
`statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). “The purpose of this rule is to convey the substance of the expert’s
`
`opinion . . . so that the opponent will be ready to rebut, to cross-examine, and to offer a
`
`competing expert if necessary.” Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc., 690 F.3d 1354,
`
`1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Where an expert
`
`report fails to disclose an opinion, or the bases and reasons for an opinion, as required by Rule
`
`26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the expert will be precluded from offering
`
`testimony as to that opinion, unless the failure to disclose it was harmless or justified. See Fed.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 26930
`
`R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (“If a party fails to provide information . . . as required by Rule 26(a) or (e),
`
`the party is not allowed to use that information . . . at a trial, unless the failure was substantially
`
`justified or is harmless.”); 02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355,
`
`1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (excluding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) expert testimony on a
`
`particular theory where a party “never adequately explained why the . . . theory was not
`
`included in the original expert report”).
`
`Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents must be analyzed on an element-by-
`
`element basis. See, e.g., Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). The patentee must provide particularized, non-conclusory testimony from an expert or
`
`person skilled in the art that explains the insubstantiality of the differences between the
`
`patented limitation and the accused product or must analyze individually (1) the function, (2)
`
`the way, and (3) the result of the claim limitation versus an element in the accused product.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 1335-36; Miken Composites, L.L.C. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 515 F.3d
`
`1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony
`Regarding Infringement of Claims 27-29 of the ’602 Patent Under the
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Dr. Madisetti disclosed no opinions whatsoever regarding the application of the doctrine
`
`of equivalents to asserted claims 27-29 of the ’602 patent. Dr. Madisetti’s substantive
`
`infringement opinions regarding the ’602 patent are set forth as claim charts in Exhibits B-1, B-
`
`2, B-3, and B-4 of his opening expert report. See Angle Decl. Ex. A (Madisetti Infringement
`
`Rpt.) at ¶¶ 156, 163, 169, 174, and 180. With respect to the elements added by dependent claims
`
`27-29, as discussed in these claim charts, Dr. Madisetti’s report does not say one word about
`
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Angle Decl. Ex. I (Madisetti Ex B-1) at 136-60,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 26931
`
`Angle Decl. Ex. J (Madisetti Ex. B-2) at 96-103, Angle Decl. Ex. K (Madisetti Ex. B-3) at 78-84,
`
`Angle Decl. Ex. L (Madisetti Ex. B-4) at 43-48. Dr. Madisetti should therefore be precluded
`
`from offering any opinions at trial that these elements are met under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`See, e.g., Zee Co. v. Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., 547 F. App’x 166, 172 (4th Cir.
`
`Oct. 18, 2013) (affirming exclusion of certain opinion testimony where the expert’s report
`
`contained no such opinions).
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony
`Regarding Infringement of Certain Limitations of the ’938 Patent Under the
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Dr. Madisetti disclosed no opinions regarding the application of the doctrine of
`
`equivalents for several elements of the asserted claims of the ’938 patent. For convenience and
`
`brevity, these elements are referred to using Dr. Madisetti’s numbering scheme from his
`
`infringement claim charts. For example, the first element of claim 8, “A synchronous DRAM
`
`(SDRAM) operating in synchronization with a clock signal, the SDRAM comprising,” is
`
`identified as element 8(a); element 8(b) is the second element: “a memory bank having a
`
`plurality of memory cells arranged in rows and columns”; and so forth.1
`
`Dr. Madisetti has failed to disclose any opinions regarding the application of the doctrine
`
`of equivalents for the following elements: 8(a), 8(b), 8(d), 8(e), 8(h), 17(a), 19(a), 19(b), 19(d),
`
`19(e), 19(f), 19(g), 20(a), 23(a), 24(a), 24(b), 24(c), 24(d), 24(e), 24(f), 24(g), and 24(h). See
`
`Angle Decl. Ex. C (Madisetti Ex. A-1), Angle Decl. Ex. D (Madisetti Ex. A-2), Angle Decl. Ex.
`
`E (Madisetti Ex. A-3), Angle Decl. Ex. F (Madisetti Ex. A-4), Angle Decl. Ex. G (Madisetti Ex.
`
`A-5), and Ex. Angle Decl. H (Madisetti Ex. A-6). As noted above, a proper doctrine of
`
`equivalents analysis must be done element by element and include an explanation of the
`
`1 A full listing of claim elements, with Dr. Madisetti’s corresponding numbering, is provided as
`Exhibit S to the declaration of Robert Angle.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 26932
`
`insubstantiality of the differences between a claim element and the accused product, or it should
`
`include a comparison of each of the (1) the function, (2) the way, and (3) the result of the claim
`
`element versus a feature in the accused product. For the above claim elements, Dr. Madisetti has
`
`provided no analysis at all and should be precluded from providing any testimony at trial.
`
`For element 8(i), Dr. Madisetti appears to invoke the doctrine of equivalents, stating:
`
`In JEDEC-standard DDR3 SDRAM, SAE is equivalent to
`tRCD/tCK, which is the delay from the application of the row
`access command to when the sense amplifier is enabled, plus the
`time between the internal column access command and enablement
`of the sense amplifiers.
`Angle Decl. Ex. C (Madisetti Ex. A-1) at 31. However, this bald assertion of equivalence is
`
`unsupported by any analysis. Dr. Madisetti’s claim chart, with respect to this element, includes
`
`only the following discussion of the doctrine of equivalents – which does not even mention
`
`“SAE,” “tRCD,” or “tCK”:
`
`For example, DDR3 performs substantially the same function of
`delaying the column address by a number of delay clock cycles
`between the column address input port and the column decoder in
`substantially the same way through use of an additive latency
`operation.
`Id. at 33. Each of Dr. Madsetti’s claim charts uses a similar formulation for this element, and
`
`provides a similar unrelated discussion of the doctrine of equivalents. See Angle Decl. Ex. D
`
`(Madisetti Ex. A-2) at 27-28; Angle Decl. Ex. E (Madisetti Ex. A-3) at 29; Angle Decl. Ex. F
`
`(Madisetti Ex. A-4) at 32-33; Angle Decl. Ex. G (Madisetti Ex. A-5) at 43; Angle Decl. Ex. H
`
`(Madisetti Ex. A-6) at 21-22. There is no discussion of SAE, much less any discussion of why
`
`SAE is allegedly insubstantially different from tRCD/tCK, or whether tRCD/tCK performs the
`
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to provide substantially the same
`
`result, as SAE. Thus, Dr. Madisetti has not provided any basis for an opinion that the claim
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 26933
`
`element SAE is equivalent to tRCD/tCK. He should therefore be precluded from providing
`
`testimony at trial that the SAE limitation of the claims is met under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`C.
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony about
`the Values Contained in Registers Related to the ’602 Patent and How These
`Values are Determined by NVIDIA Source Code
`
`Dr. Madisetti should be precluded from offering any testimony regarding the values that
`
`are set into registers in NVIDIA’s products, because he offered no opinion on this issue in his
`
`infringement expert report. As explained below, these values are of critical importance to the
`
`question of infringement. Yet Dr. Madisetti offered no opinion as to what these values are.
`
`Dr. Madisetti has analyzed whether the accused products contain the relevant registers,
`
`but he has not described any analysis of the values that are set in any of NVIDIA’s registers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Dr. Madisetti did not offer any opinions regarding what values are set in the registers
`
`in any accused product
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 26934
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 9 of 15 PagelD# 26934
`
`Because Dr. Madisetti has not provided any opinions regarding the values contained in
`
`registers related to the ’602 patent, he should be precluded from offering testimony on this
`
`subject.
`
`D.
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering
`
`any Testimony
`
`Accused Products
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s expert reports do not mention,
`
`let alone analyze,
`
`At his deposition, Dr. Madisetti admitted that his report did not mention
`
`although he attempted in his deposition to volunteerlate, unsolicited, and previously undisclosed
`
`opinions on the topic to address this glaring deficiency in his analysis. The entire exchange is
`
`reproduced below, and demonstrates that NVIDIA’s counseldid notelicit, and that Dr. Madisetti
`
`improperly attempted to volunteer, new opinions:
`
`Tl
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 26935
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 10 of 15 PagelD# 26935
`
`
`
`Angle Decl. Ex. O (Oct. 31, 2015 Madisetti Dep. Tr.) at 461:16-463:6 (emphasis added). Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s improper attempts to inject new opinions at his deposition are not a basis for
`
`permitting such opinionsto be presentedattrial.
`
`During meet-and-confer, Samsung initially agreed that Dr. Madisetti would not offer any
`
`testimony or opinions regarding subject to a review of
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s deposition testimony. However, on November8, 2015, Samsung reneged onits
`
`agreement. Samsung now contendsthat: “NVIDIA is well aware that Dr. Madisetti reviewed the
`
`relevant computer code.
`
`If NVIDIA opensthe door .
`
`.
`
`. Dr. Madisetti will testify that he did
`
`consider anc will explain how it does not change his opinions (or howit is consistent
`
`with his opinions).” See Angle Decl. Ex. P (Nov. 8, 2015 Winter to Yeh Email). Samsung’s
`
`contention that “Dr. Madisetti reviewed the relevant computer code”is irrelevant. Dr. Madisetti
`
`did not disclose any analysis or opinions about| his expert report, and NVIDIA did not
`
`elicit any such analysis or opinionsat his deposition.
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 26936
`
`Furthermore, there is no excuse for Dr. Madisetti’s failure to analyze, in his expert report,
`
`designated witness on the products accused of infringing the ’602 patent, Mr. Ashfaq Shaikh,
`
`
`
` Samsung questioned NVIDIA’s
`
`
`
`
`
`In short, Samsung and Dr. Madisetti were aware, or should have been aware, that the
`
`accused products used
`
`E.
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering any Testimony on
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness with Respect to the ’602
`Patent Besides Commercial Success and Copying by Others
`
`Dr. Madisetti did not analyze secondary considerations, with respect to the ’602 patent,
`
`other than commercial success and copying by others. Angle Decl. Ex. B (Madisetti Rbt. Rpt.)
`
`at ¶¶ 746-54. Dr. Madisetti’s rebuttal report contains a section analyzing the secondary
`
`consideration of commercial success. See id. at ¶ 746 (“It is my opinion that the ’602 Patent
`
`invention has achieved commercial success . . . .”). The only other secondary consideration
`
`analyzed by Dr. Madisetti is copying by others. Id. at ¶753 (“For the same reasons as discussed
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 26937
`
`above regarding commercial success . . . it is my opinion that copying by others . . . demonstrates
`
`that the ’602 Patent invention is not obvious.”).
`
`With respect to any other secondary considerations, Dr. Madisetti merely states that “Dr.
`
`Friedman does not offer any evidence that demonstrates any other factors of secondary
`
`considerations have not been shown . . . . I therefore believe these factors are neutral.” Id. ¶
`
`754. Because Dr. Madisetti has offered no analysis of any other secondary considerations, he
`
`should be precluded from testifying about them at trial.
`
`F.
`
`The Court Should Preclude Dr. Madisetti from Offering Testimony on any
`Nexus between Commercial Success and the ’938 Patent Invention
`
`Dr. Madisetti offered opinions in his rebuttal report on the commercial success of the
`
`’938 patent as a secondary consideration of non-obviousness. See Angle Decl. Ex. B (Madisetti
`
`Rbt. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 733-41. However, he has not provided any opinions on any alleged nexus
`
`between the alleged commercial success and the claimed invention. Id. In order to rely on
`
`commercial success, the patentee must show that there is a nexus between any commercial
`
`success and the claimed invention. See, e.g., Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d
`
`1333, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Because Dr. Madisetti offered no opinion regarding any such
`
`nexus, testimony regarding any alleged nexus should be excluded. Further, because commercial
`
`success is irrelevant without evidence of such a nexus, testimony on commercial success should
`
`also be excluded as irrelevant, confusing and prejudicial.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons given above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court exclude
`
`testimony from Dr. Madisetti on the topics identified above.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 26938
`
`Dated: November 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Robert. A. Angle
`Robert A. Angle, VSB No. 37691
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, VA 23219
`T: (804) 697-1200
`F: (804) 697-1339
`
`Maximilian A. Grant (admitted pro hac vice)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Gabriel K. Bell (admitted pro hac vice)
`gabriel.bell@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (admitted pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Ron E. Shulman (admitted pro hac vice)
`ron.shulman@lw.com
`Richard G. Frenkel (admitted pro hac vice)
`rick.frenkel@lw.com
`Lisa K. Nguyen (admitted pro hac vice)
`lisa.nguyen@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: (650) 328-4600; Fax: (650) 463-2600
`
`Julie M. Holloway (admitted pro hac vice)
`julie.holloway@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 391-0600; Fax: (415) 395-8095
`
`Ann Marie T. Wahls (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 26939
`
`annmarie.wahls@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700; Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`Counsel for NVIDIA Corporation,
`Old Micro, Inc. f/k/a Velocity Micro, Inc.,
`and Velocity Holdings, LLC
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 336 Filed 11/10/15 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 26940
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 10th day of November, 2015, I will electronically file the
`
`foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a
`
`notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:
`
`Robert W. McFarland
`rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com
`McGuire Woods LLP
`101 W. Main Street, Suite 9000
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`
`Brian C. Riopelle
`briopelle@mcguirewoods.com
`McGuire Woods LLP
`Gateway Plaza
`800 East Canal Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`Darin W. Snyder
`dsnyder@omm.com
`Alexander B. Parker
`aparker@omm.com
`Elysa Q. Wan
`ewan@omm.com
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Vision L. Winter
`vwinter@omm.com
`Ryan K. Yagura
`ryagura@omm.com
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Mishima Alam
`malam@omm.com
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`1625 Eye Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`/s/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert A. Angle (VSB No. 37691)
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, VA 23219
`Telephone: (804) 697-1200
`Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
`
`12
`
`