Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 345 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 27147
`
`
`
`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. 4: TO
`PRECLUDE IMPROPER FINANCIAL COMPARISON BETWEEN NVIDIA’S SIZE,
`WEALTH, OR REVENUES AND SAMSUNG’S DAMAGES CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 345 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 27148
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. v. Farese,
`2008 WL 5382416 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 19, 2008) .......................................................................... 1
`
`Igo v. Coachmen Industries, Inc.,
`938 F.2d 650 (6th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comp., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51, 68 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ............................................................................................................................ 2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 345 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 27149
`
`
`
`Defendants NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”), Velocity Micro, Inc. d/b/a Velocity
`
`Micro, and Velocity Holdings, LLC (“Defendants”) respectfully move the Court in limine to
`
`preclude Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“Samsung”) from eliciting testimony or presenting argument at trial improperly comparing
`
`NVIDIA’s size, wealth, or overall revenues to Samsung’s damages demand. Any such
`
`comparison would be improper and would only serve to make Samsung’s proffered damages
`
`claim to appear modest by comparison, and to prejudice NVIDIA by artificially inflating the
`
`jury’s damages calculation.
`
`The Federal Circuit has confirmed that “disclosure to the jury of the overall product
`
`revenues cannot help but skew the damages horizon for the jury, regardless of the contribution of
`
`the patented component to this revenue.” LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comp., Inc., 694 F.3d
`
`51, 68 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1320 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011). Comparisons between product revenues and damages claims “only serve to make a
`
`patentee’s proffered damages amount appear modest by comparison, and to artificially inflate the
`
`jury’s damages calculation beyond that which is ‘adequate to compensate for the infringement.’”
`
`Id.; see also Uniloc, 632 F.3d at 1320 (holding that comparisons between defendant’s $20 billion
`
`in sales of the infringing product to plaintiff’s $500 million damages claim to be improper).
`
`References to a party as a “wealthy, thriving, large company” and references to a
`
`company’s finances and size absent appropriate context are irrelevant and regularly excluded.
`
`See, e.g., Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. v. Farese, 2008 WL 5382416, at *3 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 19,
`
`2008); Igo v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 938 F.2d 650, 653 (6th Cir. 1991) (granting new trial
`
`based in part on counsel’s reference to defendant’s wealth, “obviously to demonstrate that
`
`[defendant] could pay a big verdict”). Such irrelevant comparisons could also lead to jury
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 345 Filed 11/10/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 27150
`
`
`
`confusion regarding the appropriate revenue base for any damages analysis. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`It is anticipated that the parties may reference each parties’ respective revenues, product
`
`margins, or other financial data, but this is permissible only in relation to a hypothetical
`
`negotiation for determining Samsung’s alleged damages in this case (See, e.g., Ex. 1, Oct. 23
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Putnam ¶¶ 111-113). Controlling Federal Circuit precedent confirms,
`
`however, that Samsung may not make irrelevant and prejudicial comparisons between NVIDIA’s
`
`size, wealth, or overall revenues and Samsung’s damages demand. Such comparisons would
`
`only serve to improperly suggest that Samsung’s damages demand appears modest by
`
`comparison to NVIDIA’s overall revenues, and to artificially inflate the jury’s damages
`
`calculation beyond that which is adequate to compensate for the infringement. LaserDynamics,
`
`Inc., 694 F.3d at 68.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and consistent with controlling Federal Circuit precedent,
`
`Defendants respectfully request that this Court exclude any testimony or argument at trial
`
`comparing NVIDIA’s size, wealth, or overall revenues to Samsung’s damages demand.
`
`
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 345 Filed 11/10/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 27151
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 345 Filed 11/10/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 27152
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`