Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 17 PageID# 26987
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`
`
`
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-v.-
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, OLD MICRO,
`INC. F/K/A VELOCITY MICRO, INC., AND
`VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 TO
`PRECLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY RELATING TO
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,287,902 AND 8,252,675
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 17 PageID# 26988
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`DR. FAIR SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY OR
`OPINIONS REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’675 OR ’902 PATENTS
`UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS. ..............................................................1
`
`DR. FAIR SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY OR
`OPINIONS ABOUT THE SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF COPYING
`BY OTHERS AND RECOGNITION/PRAISE BY OTHERS. ..........................................3
`
`SAMSUNG SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE OF
`OR ELICITING TESTIMONY REGARDING
`
`. ....................................................................5
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Legal Authority ........................................................................................................6
`Factual Background .................................................................................................6
`Argument .................................................................................................................8
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 17 PageID# 26989
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions,
`479 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Cooper Notification, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.,
`867 F. Supp. 2d 485 (D. Del. 2012) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`ICON Internet Competence Network B.V. v. Travelocity.com LP,
`No. 3:11-cv-01131, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24169 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) .......................... 3
`
`In re GPAC, Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`In re Kao,
`639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`No. 07-ML-01816-C-RGK, 2009 WL 8636007 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009) ...................... 6, 9, 10
`
`In re Mettke,
`570 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Mettke v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 1311 (2010) ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`N5 Techs. LLC v. Capital One N.A.,
`56 F. Supp. 3d 755 (E.D. Va. 2014) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin–Williams Co.,
`318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 6, 10
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-335-TJW-CE, 2010 WL 457142 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2010) ..................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 17 PageID# 26990
`
`
`
`Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 26(E)(1)(A) ........................................................................................................... 6
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 37(C)(1) ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 5 of 17 PageID# 26991
`
`
`
`Defendants NVIDIA Corporation, Velocity Micro, Inc. d/b/a Velocity Micro, and
`
`Velocity Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby respectfully submit
`
`this
`
`memorandum in support of its Motion in Limine No. 3, which seeks an Order:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Precluding Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) expert Dr. Richard Fair from offering
`testimony or opinions regarding infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,252,675 (“’675
`patent”) or U.S. Patent No. 6,287,902 (“’902 patent”) under the doctrine of
`equivalents.
`
`Precluding Dr. Fair from offering testimony or opinions regarding secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness with respect to:
`
`a. Copying by others (’675 patent and ’902 patent)
`
`b. Recognition/praise by others (’675 patent and ’902 patent)
`
`c. Commercial success (’675 patent)
`
`3. Precluding Samsung from offering evidence or eliciting testimony regarding its
`
`
`I.
`
`DR. FAIR SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY OR
`OPINIONS REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’675 OR ’902 PATENTS
`UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS.
`
`Samsung should be precluded from eliciting testimony from its technical expert
`
`Dr. Richard Fair regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`It is black letter law that to establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, a
`
`patentee must provide “particularized testimony and linking argument as [to] the equivalence
`
`between the claim limitation and the alleged equivalent.” Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., 754 F.3d
`
`1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014); AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 F.3d 1320, 1328
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (same). “Generalized testimony as to the overall similarity between the claims
`
`and the accused infringer’s product or process will not suffice.” Gemalto, 754 F.3d at 1374.
`
`(quoting Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 6 of 17 PageID# 26992
`
`
`
`1996)). “Such evidence must be presented on a limitation-by-limitation basis.” AquaTex Indus.,
`
`479 F.3d at 1328 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Tex. Instruments, 90 F.3d at 1567).
`
`Here, Dr. Fair provides neither particularized testimony nor linking argument on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis. Rather, the entirety of Dr. Fair’s “opinion” on the doctrine of
`
`equivalents consists of only the following two boilerplate assertions:1
`
` “The accused NVIDIA 28 nm products are made using the processes claimed in
`Claims 6, 7, 10, 15, and 16 of the ’902 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of
`equivalents.” See, e.g., Ex. A, Fair Op. Rpt. at ¶ 29.
`
` “It is my opinion that the entirety of the method for forming contact holes in the
`accused NVIDIA 28 nm Devices falls within the range of equivalents to which
`each element of Claim 6 is entitled under a function, way, and result test. My
`opinion is supported by the claim chart shown in Exhibit C-1 [sic.], and it may be
`modified as additional NVIDIA information becomes available.” See, e.g., id. at
`¶ 143.
`
`The referenced claim chart exhibits do not mention the doctrine of equivalents at all. See, e.g.,
`
`id. at Exs. D-1, E-1.
`
`
`
`These types of boilerplate assertions are insufficient to support a claim under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, and courts routinely preclude plaintiffs who rely solely on them, as Samsung has,
`
`from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents at trial. Courts have found similar
`
`opinions to be “boilerplate language [that] does not satisfy [the patentee’s] burden of presenting
`
`particularized expert testimony”:
`
`ICON contends that any limitation not found to be literally present
`or performed is equivalently provided or performed, representing
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, in that, as
`described herein, the differences between the claimed and accused
`server are only insubstantial and/or because Travelocity’s server,
`as described herein, includes substantially the same function
`performed in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially
`the same result as the requirement of the claim.
`
`1
`These boilerplate opinions repeat through Dr. Fair’s report, with only the product
`identifier (e.g., NVIDIA 28nm products), claim, and exhibit number changing.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 7 of 17 PageID# 26993
`
`
`
`ICON Internet Competence Network B.V. v. Travelocity.com LP, No. 3:11-cv-01131, 2013 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 24169, at *31-33 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013); see also Cooper Notification, Inc. v.
`
`Twitter, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 2d 485, 496-97 (D. Del. 2012) (granting summary judgment of non-
`
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because expert’s testimony “largely consists of
`
`‘conclusory boilerplate’ language that merely recites the legal elements of the ‘function-way-
`
`result’ test for equivalence, together with various claim limitations and elements of Defendants’
`
`accused systems,” which provides “no meaningful explanation of why or how Defendants’
`
`accused systems are equivalent to the asserted claims”); accord Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex,
`
`Inc., No. 2:07-cv-335-TJW-CE, 2010 WL 457142, at *8-9 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2010) (precluding
`
`expert’s “boilerplate assertions of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents”); N5 Techs.
`
`LLC v. Capital One N.A., 56 F. Supp. 3d 755, 762-64 (E.D. Va. 2014) (same).
`
`As with the foregoing cases, Samsung should be precluded from eliciting testimony from
`
`its technical expert Dr. Richard Fair regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`II.
`
`DR. FAIR SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY OR
`OPINIONS ABOUT THE SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF COPYING BY
`OTHERS AND RECOGNITION/PRAISE BY OTHERS.
`
`Samsung should be precluded from eliciting testimony or opinions from Dr. Fair
`
`regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness with respect to (i) copying by others and
`
`(ii) recognition/praise by others.
`
`Secondary considerations require a “nexus” (or
`
`link) between
`
`the secondary
`
`consideration and the claimed subject matter. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(citing Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). “Where the offered
`
`secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and
`
`novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the invention.” Id. To establish a nexus for
`
`copying and praise by others, the patentee must “establish a nexus between the evidence and the
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 8 of 17 PageID# 26994
`
`
`
`merits of the claimed invention.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`Secondary considerations that lack a nexus to the claimed invention are irrelevant. See
`
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Ormco
`
`Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Samsung bears the burden to
`
`establish a nexus between any secondary consideration and the novel features of the asserted
`
`claims. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580.
`
`With respect to copying by others, Dr. Fair merely asserts that “widespread use” of the
`
`technology claimed in the ’675 and ’902 patents by NVIDIA and others demonstrate their
`
`non-obviousness. Ex. B, Fair ’675 Rbt. Rpt. at ¶ 179; Ex. C, Fair ’902 Rbt. Rpt. at ¶ 340. But
`
`Dr. Fair makes no attempt “to show what specific portion of the claimed invention was copied.”
`
`See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580 (finding no nexus to copying where affidavits “did not detail
`
`what aspect(s) of the invention claimed in the [] patent [were] targeted by industry copyists”).
`
`Moreover, Dr. Fair’s generalized claim of “widespread use” is insufficient as copying “requires
`
`duplication of features of the patentee’s work based on access to that work, lest all infringement
`
`be mistakenly treated as copying.” Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v.
`
`Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Absent specific opinions tying copying to
`
`the novel features of the claimed invention, Dr. Fair’s testimony about the alleged “widespread
`
`use” is irrelevant and should not be presented to the jury. W. Union, 626 F.3d at 1372.
`
`With respect to recognition/praise by other, Dr. Fair opines that the ’902 patent has been
`
`praised by others because it has been cited in two patents – U.S. Patent No. 6,833,595 and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,158,404. Ex. C, Fair ’902 Rbt. Rpt. at ¶ 340. Dr. Fair also points to statements
`
`made by NVIDIA engineer Joseph Greco to argue that “NVIDIA’s own statements praising the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 9 of 17 PageID# 26995
`
`
`
`process used to manufacture the accused NVIDIA 28 nm devices show the recognition and
`
`praise of the process of the ’675 Patent in the industry.” Ex. B, Fair ’675 Rbt. Rpt. at ¶ 179. But
`
`again, Dr. Fair has not linked the alleged praise to the asserted claims. Merely pointing to
`
`citations by the Patent Office is not enough to show praise for the novel features of the claimed
`
`invention. See, e.g., In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting patentee’s
`
`evidence that asserted patent was cited by the Patent Office 93 times), cert. denied sub nom.
`
`Mettke v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 1311 (2010). Nor does Dr. Fair sufficiently tie the alleged praise to
`
`the purportedly novel features of the inventions claimed in the ’675 and ’902 patents.2 See Ohio
`
`Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (rejecting evidence of
`
`praise by others not tied to the merits of the claimed invention). Without the required nexus, the
`
`alleged praise is irrelevant and should not be allowed before the jury. W. Union, 626 F.3d at
`
`1372.
`
`III.
`
`its
`
`SAMSUNG SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING EVIDENCE OF OR
`ELICITING TESTIMONY REGARDING
`ITS
`
`
`
`
`Samsung should be precluded from offering evidence of or eliciting testimony regarding
`
`
`
`
`2
`Because Dr. Fair points to the same evidence – statements made by NVIDIA engineer
`Joseph Greco – to establish both commercial success and recognition/praise by others,
`Dr. Fair fails to establish the requisite nexus between the alleged commercial success and
`the novel features of the ’675 patent for the same reasons he has not established a nexus
`to the alleged recognition/praise by others. See Ormco, 463 F.3d at 1311-12 (stating that
`“evidence of commercial success and other secondary considerations is only significant if
`there is a nexus between the claimed invention and commercial success” and rejecting
`patentee’s evidence of commercial success where it appeared to be attributable to features
`unclaimed or already in the prior art). Dr. Fair should therefore be precluded from
`offering any testimony or opinions regarding commercial success relating to the ’675
`patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 10 of 17 PageID# 26996
`
`
`
`A. Legal Authority
`
`“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or
`
`(e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at
`
`a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.” FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`37(C)(1); see also id. 26(E)(1)(A). “[I]n exercising its broad discretion to determine whether a
`
`nondisclosure of evidence is substantially justified or harmless for purposes of a Rule 37(c)(1)
`
`exclusion analysis, a district court should be guided by the following factors: (1) the surprise to
`
`the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the
`
`surprise; (3) the extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance
`
`of the evidence, and (5) the nondisclosing party’s explanation for its failure to disclose the
`
`evidence.” S. States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin–Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 (4th Cir.
`
`2003); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 07-ML-01816-C-RGK,
`
`2009 WL 8636007, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2009).
`
`B. Factual Background
`
`On April 5, 2015, Defendants served an interrogatory seeking Samsung’s priority date
`
`contention for, inter alia, the ’902 patent. See Ex. D, Defendant Velocity’s Interr. No. 1.
`
`Samsung’s response did not provide any evidence of diligence. On May 12, 2015, Defendants
`
`asked Samsung to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 1. See Ex. E, A.M. Wahls
`
`5/12/15 ltr. to V. Winter. Samsung responded by letter on June 10, 2015, refusing to provide
`
`additional documentary evidence and only indicating that “Samsung may also offer testimony of
`
`the inventors and others.” Ex. F, A. Parker 6/10/15 ltr. to A.M. Wahls. On June 12, 2015,
`
`Samsung supplemented its response stating, without support, that
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. G, Samsung’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 11 of 17 PageID# 26997
`
`
`
`Supp. Resp. to Velocity’s First Set of Interr. at 10.
`
`On August 4, 2015, Defendants wrote Samsung again asking Samsung to supplement its
`
`deficient responses to Interrogatory No. 1 or confirm it had no relevant documents. See Ex. H,
`
`A.M. Wahls 8/4/15 ltr. to A. Parker. On August 9, 2015, Samsung confirmed that it already
`
`“produced all non-privileged documents in its possession custody, or control regarding the
`
`conception, diligence, reduction to practice, and prosecution of the asserted patents” and “does
`
`not have any additional documents relating to diligence for these patents.” Ex. I, A. Parker
`
`8/9/15 ltr. to A.M. Wahls.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Throughout this time period, Defendants worked with their experts to select the prior art
`
`references they would rely upon at trial pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order. See Ex. K,
`
`Dkt. No. 202 (June 19, 2015). In connection with this selection, Defendants had to determine
`
`whether Samsung could antedate a prior art reference by establishing an earlier conception date
`
`coupled with diligence until the constructive reduction to practice of the invention claimed in the
`
`’902 patent. Accordingly, and as evidenced by the multiple letters Defendants sent to Samsung,
`
`Defendants sought all evidence Samsung could rely on to antedate prior art, including evidence
`
`of diligence.
`
`On September 18, 2015, mere hours before midnight on the day that Defendants’ expert
`
`report on the invalidity of the ’902 patent was due,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 12 of 17 PageID# 26998
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Ex. O, Samsung’s Responses to NVIDIA’s Sixth Set of RFAs (Oct. 29, 2015) at 252-
`
`56. Samsung has never explained why it withheld these documents for almost the entirety of the
`
`discovery period or why it represented to Defendants throughout the discovery period that it had
`
`no additional documents related to prosecution when these
`
`
`
`On October 5, 2015, almost three weeks after producing
`
`
`
`
`
`and only several days before rebuttal expert reports were due, Samsung disclosed a witness, Mr.
`
`Sung Pil Kim, and identified him as having knowledge “relating to the conception, reduction to
`
`practice, diligence, preparation, filing, and/or prosecution of the application that issued as the
`
`’902 Patent and/or related Korean applications.” Ex. P, Samsung’s Third Supp. Resp. to
`
`Velocity’s Interr. No. 1 (Oct. 5, 2015) at 18; see also Ex. Q, Samsung First Amended Initial
`
`Disclosures (Oct. 5, 2015) at 4.
`
`C. Argument
`
`Samsung’s production of
`
` hours before
`
`Defendants’ invalidity expert report was due was neither substantially justified nor harmless.
`
`Application of the five-factor test enunciated by the Fourth Circuit in Southern States compels
`
`exclusion of the
`
` pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1).
`
`First, Samsung’s untimely disclosure caused “surprise to the party against whom the
`
`evidence would be offered.” Southern States, 318 F.3d at 597. For the majority of the discovery
`
`period, Samsung did not identify any documents related to diligence in its interrogatory
`
`responses and affirmatively stated that it “does not have any additional documents relating to
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 13 of 17 PageID# 26999
`
`
`
`diligence for these patents.” Ex. I, A. Parker 8/9/15 ltr. to A.M. Wahls. Samsung’s subsequent
`
`production of “additional documents relating to diligence,” long after Defendants had to select
`
`their narrowed list of prior art references and on the night that their expert report on invalidity
`
`was due, is the epitome of surprise. Despite Defendants’ repeated requests for discovery related
`
`to Samsung’s priority claim, Samsung failed to disclose the sole document related to diligence in
`
`the prosecution of the ’902 patent until just hours before Defendants’ invalidity report was due,
`
`and then waited almost another three weeks to disclose the only witness that could testify about
`
`this document. This factor weighs heavily in favor of exclusion.
`
`Second, Defendants have no available means of curing the surprise caused by Samsung’s
`
`gamesmanship. The Court set a schedule for selection of prior art references leading up to
`
`opening expert reports. See Ex. K, Dkt. No. 202 (June 19, 2015). Defendants and their technical
`
`expert relied on Samsung’s discovery responses, production of documents, and attorney
`
`representations regarding priority date to select the key prior art references and combination
`
`references for the expert report on invalidity of the ’902 patent.3 See In re Katz Interactive Call
`
`Processing Patent Litig., 2009 WL 8636007 at *2 (finding that “[defendant] suffered prejudice”
`
`where expert report and defendants’ motion show that defendants “prepared its invalidity defense
`
`in reliance of the priority date [plaintiff] provided”).
`
`The third Southern States factor also favors exclusion. For example, in In re Katz, the
`
`Court found that if the plaintiff’s new “position on priority has merit, this Court would have to
`
`allow [Defendant] time to potentially prepare a different defense based on earlier prior art [and]
`
`3 Defendants’ expert selected six prior art references for his report per the Court’s schedule.
`Samsung’s new evidence purports to establish a priority date earlier than one of the three
`primary references (“Lee reference”) Defendants rely on. The other two primary references
`and three prior art combination references were selected based in part on the disclosures of the
`Lee reference, to cover the limitations of the asserted ’902 patent claims. Accordingly, all six
`of Defendants’ selections are potentially impacted by Samsung’s tardy production.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 14 of 17 PageID# 27000
`
`
`
`[t]his Court is unwilling to restart the proceedings in that manner.” 2009 WL 8636007 at *3.
`
`The same result follows here. Should the Court allow Samsung’s untimely-produced evidence
`
`and grant Defendants additional time to prepare a different defense, the Court’s trial schedule
`
`would be disrupted. See id. at *1.
`
`
`
`As Defendants explained in their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Ex. R, D.I.
`
`294), Samsung’s untimely evidence fails as a matter of law to show diligence. Thus, the fourth
`
`factor – “the importance of the evidence” – also weighs in favor of preclusion.
`
`Fifth, Samsung has no “explanation for its failure to disclose the evidence.” S. States,
`
`318 F.3d at 595.
`
`
`
` Samsung should have produced
`
`this document in its initial document production. Worse yet, Defendants repeatedly and
`
`specifically requested this discovery from Samsung. In short, Samsung has no excuse for its
`
`failure to disclose this evidence and no explanation for its affirmative representation that no such
`
`evidence existed.
`
`Defendants respectfully request the Court preclude Samsung from offering evidence of or
`
`eliciting testimony regarding its
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
` at trial.
`
`For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court:
`
`1.
`
`Preclude Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) expert Dr. Richard Fair from offering testimony or
`
`opinions regarding the ’675 or ’902 patents under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2.
`
`Preclude Dr. Fair from offering testimony or opinions regarding secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness with respect to:
`
`a.
`
`Copying by others (’675 patent and ’902 patent)
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 15 of 17 PageID# 27001
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Recognition/praise by others (’675 patent and ’902 patent)
`
`Commercial success (’675 patent); and
`
`3.
`
`Preclude Samsung from offering evidence or eliciting testimony regarding its
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`11
`
`Dated: November 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 16 of 17 PageID# 27002
`
`
`
`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)
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 342 Filed 11/10/15 Page 17 of 17 PageID# 27003
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on the 10th 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
`Michael A. Koplow
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert Angle
`/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
`
`