TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.
Filing
239
PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. (terminating 167 Motion in Limine; 233 Stipulation) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TVIIM, LLC,
Case No. 13-cv-04545-HSG
Plaintiff,
8
PRETRIAL ORDER
v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 167, 233
9
10
MCAFEE, INC.,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
The Court held a pretrial conference in this case on June 30, 2015. The parties
13
subsequently filed supplemental briefs and a stipulation regarding outstanding issues, which the
14
Court rules on as described below.
Jury Instruction Regarding The Term “Vulnerability.”
15
A.
16
The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs regarding their proposed approaches to
17
explaining the term “vulnerability” to the jury. See Dkt. Nos. 229, 231. Defendant McAfee, Inc.
18
argues that the Court should instruct the jury using specific language from the Court’s claim
19
construction order. Dkt. No. 231 at 3. Plaintiff TVIIM, LLC argues that the Court should instruct
20
the jury on the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and concedes that the plain and ordinary
21
meaning is “exploitable weakness in a computer system,” as advocated by Defendant’s expert Dr.
22
Aviel Rubin. Dkt. No. 229 at 1. However, Plaintiff further argues that the Court should exclude
23
“discrepancies” from the scope of the meaning of the term “vulnerabilities.” Id.
24
The Court agrees with the parties that the jury should be instructed on the plain and
25
ordinary meaning of the term “vulnerability,” and further agrees with both parties that this plain
26
and ordinary meaning is “exploitable weakness in a computer system.” See Dkt. No. 229 at 1
27
(“Plaintiff is amenable to the Court instructing the jury that a ‘vulnerability’ is an ‘exploitable
28
weakness,’ as proposed by Defendant[’s] expert Dr. Rubin.”); Dkt. No. 138 at 2-3 (Defendant’s
1
Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity) (“As Dr. Rubin’s declaration
2
demonstrated, the plain meaning of vulnerability to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
3
of the claimed invention—in light of the intrinsic evidence—is any ‘exploitable weakness in a
4
computer system.’”).
5
The Court rejects Plaintiff’s contention that the Court should instruct the jury that the term
“vulnerability” necessarily excludes “discrepancies.” Plaintiff did not raise this point in its claim
7
construction arguments. Moreover, the Court finds that the intrinsic evidence does not clearly
8
exclude “discrepancies” from the scope of the claim term “vulnerability.” The term “discrepancy”
9
does not appear in any of the ’168 Patent claims. And the specification at times uses the terms
10
interchangeably, or indicates that a “discrepancy” is a subset of the general category of security
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
“vulnerabilities.” See, e.g., ’168 Patent 1:11-18 (“The invention described herein relates to a
12
method and apparatus for analyzing a computer system and identifying security vulnerabilities,
13
and more specifically to a method and apparatus for performing a series of procedures which
14
identify security vulnerabilities and discrepancies in the computer system and in some cases
15
suggesting and implementing corrective action.”), 3:42-44 (“The system identifies vulnerable
16
configurations and, in some situations, provides instruction on how to repair particular
17
discrepancies or detected breaches.”) (emphases added).
18
Accordingly, the Court is strongly inclined to include the following in both the preliminary
19
and concluding jury instructions: “The term ‘vulnerability’ means an exploitable weakness in a
20
computer system, and is not limited in scope to pre-existing security problems.” If the parties
21
object to this instruction, they must file a one-page statement by July 10, 2015 articulating the
22
reasons for any such objection. Plaintiff need not reiterate its claim construction arguments, as
23
any objection based on those arguments is deemed preserved for the record.
24
B.
25
The Court has reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefs regarding the testimony of Eric
Testimony of Eric Knight
26
Knight, who will be testifying both as a fact witness and as an expert witness at trial. At the
27
pretrial conference, Plaintiff alluded to the potential burden on Mr. Knight resulting from having
28
to stay in San Francisco for the duration of the four-day trial at the pretrial conference, see Tr. at
2
1
24:10-13, but Plaintiff does not identify any specific burden in its supplemental brief. See Dkt.
2
No. 235. Instead, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s proposed trial structure is “wildly impractical.”
3
Id. at 1.
4
The Court finds within its discretion that trial is most effectively structured according to
5
the parties’ respective burdens of proof. See Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1358
6
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“District courts . . . are afforded broad discretion to control and manage their
7
dockets, including the authority to decide the order in which they hear and decide issues pending
8
before them.”). Therefore, trial will proceed as follows:
9
First, Plaintiff will present its case-in-chief on infringement and damages. Mr.
Knight would likely be called during this phase of the trial as a fact witness.
Second, Defendant will present its rebuttal case on infringement and damages, and
its affirmative case on invalidity and inequitable conduct.
Finally, Plaintiff will present its rebuttal case on invalidity and inequitable conduct.
Mr. Knight would likely be called during this phase of the trial as a fact witness.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
The parties will not present reply evidence.
In its motion in limine No. 3, Defendant requests that the Court specifically instruct the
16
jury on the distinction between Mr. Knight’s testimony as a fact witness and his testimony as an
17
expert witness. As stipulated by the parties, the Court will instruct the jury on expert testimony in
18
general. If the need arises during trial, the Court will consider any proposed additional
19
instructions regarding Mr. Knight’s dual role as both fact witness and expert witness.
20
21
C.
Jury Materials
On the first day of trial, the parties shall bring ten paper copies of (1) the sample patent
22
referenced in the Federal Judicial Center’s (“FJC”) “The Patent Process: An Overview for Jurors”
23
video; and (2) asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,889,168. The parties shall also be responsible for
24
providing and showing the FJC video on the first day of trial. A jury notebook will be provided to
25
the jurors at the conclusion of the trial, for use during deliberations. The specific contents of that
26
notebook will be decided at the charging conference.
27
28
D.
Joint Stipulation
The Court otherwise approves the parties’ stipulation filed July 6, 2015. See Dkt. No. 233.
3
1
E.
2
Plaintiff shall disclose, by 7:00 p.m. one day in advance, any testimony or evidence it
Potential Sealing of Trial Exhibits and Testimony
3
intends to present at trial that refers to (1) the details of the source code for the accused
4
functionality in Defendant’s products; or (2) Defendant’s non-public financial information,
5
including licensing terms. Plaintiff’s disclosure shall be of sufficient specificity to enable
6
Defendant to determine whether it must request the sealing of the testimony or evidence. The
7
parties shall make all efforts to present evidence so as to minimize the need to seal the courtroom
8
or specific exhibits.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
F.
Expert Reports
The parties shall lodge courtesy copies of all expert reports with the Court by close of
business on July 10, 2015.
12
G.
13
The parties shall appear before the Court at 8:00 a.m. on July 16, 2015 to discuss any
14
15
16
17
18
Trial Schedule
remaining outstanding issues before jury selection begins.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?