Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 339 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 26949
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et
`al.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil No. 3:14cv757 (REP)(DJN)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO
`PRECLUDE SAMSUNG FROM PROVIDING CERTAIN EVIDENCE RELATED TO
`ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY DISCLOSE THE ’938 PATENT TO JEDEC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 339 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 26950
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
`886 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (W.D. Wis. 2012)
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`1
`
`1
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 339 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 26951
`
`
`
`It is undisputed that Defendants diligently sought discovery, including deposition
`
`testimony, related to Samsung’s failure to timely disclose U.S. Patent No. 6,262,938 (“’938
`
`patent”) to the standards setting organization JEDEC. See, e.g., Ex. A, Defendants’ Notice of
`
`Deposition of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), served Aug. 4, 2015, Exhibit A at 17-18. It is further undisputed that
`
`Samsung did not -- and represented that it could not -- provide this information in response to
`
`NVIDIA’s discovery requests. See Ex. B, Samsung’s Responses to NVIDIA’s Ninth Set of
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 21, 23-25), served Oct. 30, 2015, at 8. Thus, Samsung is precluded from
`
`providing this evidence during trial.
`
`Samsung’s failure to timely disclose the ’938 patent to JEDEC provides the basis for a
`
`number of Defendants’ affirmative defenses including implied waiver and breach of contract.
`
`See, e.g., Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1083-87 (W.D. Wis. 2012). During
`
`discovery, Defendants requested 30(b)(6) testimony on, among other things, the following
`
`topics:
`
`• NVIDIA’s 30(b)(6) Topic No. 63: “All present and past positions taken by Samsung, and
`the bases, justifications, and support therefor, regarding whether the Patents-in-Suit are
`Essential, as this term is defined in the relevant Standard Setting Organizations, and
`whether the Accused Products comply with any Joint Electron Device Engineering
`Council (“JEDEC”) standard . . . .”
`
`• NVIDIA’s 30(b)(6) Topic No. 65: “Samsung’s policies, practices, and processes that
`describe or govern when Samsung discloses or declares a patent [to] an SSO.”
`
`• NVIDIA’s 30(b)(6) Topic No. 67: “The facts and circumstances surrounding Samsung’s
`December 30, 2004 letter from Mr. Mian Quddus to Mr. John Kelly of JEDEC
`identifying the ’938 Patent and the application for the ’602 Patent.”
`
`
`Ex. A, Defendants’ Notice of Deposition of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), served Aug. 4, 2015, Exhibit A at
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 339 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 26952
`
`
`
`17-18. Samsung acknowledged that its 30(b)(6) witness on these topics, Mr. Mian Quddus, was
`
`unable to provide adequate testimony on these topics. See, e.g., Ex. C, Sept. 22, 2015 Nguyen
`
`Ltr. to Winter & Riopelle at 1-3; Ex. D, Sept. 29, 2015 Nguyen Ltr. to Parker at 1-2. After the
`
`parties met and conferred to determine whether Samsung could provide another witness or other
`
`information on these topics, Samsung provided an interrogatory response in which it stated, in
`
`part, that “[p]ursuant to a reasonable search and inquiry, no one at Samsung recalls how it was
`
`determined that the ’938 Patent and the application that issued as to the ’602 Patent were to be
`
`included in that December 30, 2004 disclosure letter.” Ex. B, Samsung’s Responses to
`
`NVIDIA’s Ninth Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 21, 23-25), served Oct. 30, 2015, at 8.
`
`When the parties met and conferred regarding this motion, Samsung took the position
`
`that neither party should be permitted to discuss the untimely disclosure of the ’938 patent by
`
`Samsung at trial. This untimely disclosure is the basis for Defendants’ affirmative defenses
`
`including breach of contract and waiver. Defendants are therefore entitled to discuss these
`
`aspects as part of their defenses. However, Samsung’s failure to provide discovery on these
`
`topics precludes Samsung from explaining the untimely disclosure of the ’938 patent to JEDEC
`
`at trial.
`
`Accordingly, Samsung should be precluded from presenting any evidence at trial
`
`regarding: (i) the bases and justifications for declaring any claim of the ’938 patent as essential
`
`to any JEDEC standard; (ii) Samsung’s policies, practices, and processes that describe or govern
`
`when Samsung discloses or declares a patent to JEDEC; (iii) the facts and circumstances
`
`surrounding Samsung’s disclosure of the ’938 patent to JEDEC and Samsung’s Dec. 30, 2004
`
`letter from Mr. Mian Quddus to Mr. John Kelly of JEDEC identifying the ’938 patent to JEDEC;
`
`and (iv) most importantly, any reasons or justifications for not disclosing the ’938 patent earlier.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 339 Filed 11/10/15 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 26953
`
`
`
`Defendants diligently sought this information during discovery, and Samsung was unable to
`
`produce a witness or any evidence in response to Defendants’ requests. Samsung should not be
`
`permitted to produce any witness or evidence at trial.
`
`
`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)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 339 Filed 11/10/15 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 26954
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 339 Filed 11/10/15 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 26955
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`1
`
`