MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Filing
596
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/5/14. (Attachments: # 1Exhibit: Jury Questionnaire)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CASE NO.: 11-CV-5341 YGR
MEDIATEK, INC.,
10
PLAINTIFF,
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5
11
VS.
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
13
DEFENDANT
14
The Court held a trial readiness conference on July 31, 2014. All parties were present.
15
Following therefrom, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
16
A. Procedural Issues
17
1. The Court sets a further trial readiness conference for Monday, August 18, 2014,
18
at 9:30 a.m.
19
2. Once the parties have finalized their meet and confer regarding exhibits, they shall
20
file a Revised Joint Exhibit List.
21
3. The exhibits shall include a form of exhibit which includes all stipulations of fact
22
as identified in Dockets 410 and 467.
23
B. Outstanding Motions in Limine
24
1. Pursuant to the Pretrial Order 4 (Dkt. 568), the Court accepted testimony from Mr.
25
Wagner regarding the specific areas of testimony sought to be proffered at trial, in
26
light of other pretrial rulings. In particular, MediaTek challenged the factual
27
foundation for statements and opinions made in the Expert Rebuttal Report of
28
Brett L. Reed, at pages 14-15, namely that:
i. “the dynamic voltage and frequency scaling technology claimed by the
1
‘331 patent is not beneficial” to a product at issue;
2
ii. a product at issue “operates in idle mode most of the time, and only
3
4
operates for a split second in full power mode” which “cannot create a
5
situation that would obtain particular value from the claimed use of the
6
‘331 patent;”
iii. “the hardware implementation of DVFS...is not used in automotive
7
8
applications....and the DVFS hardware is not enabled in i.MX chips at
9
all....”; and
iv. the “combined hardware-software implementation [of DVFS] is not
10
Northern District of California
enabled or supported by Freescale” and that Freescale “users” are
12
United States District Court
11
“encourage[d]...to use the software-based solution.”
13
MediaTek’s objections are SUSTAINED and the Court’s ruling on MediaTek’s Motion in Limine No.
14
11 is amended to provide that the motion is GRANTED to the extent that Mr. Reed relies on Mr.
15
Wagner, and any previously undisclosed document, to support the statements made in his Rebuttal
16
Report.
With respect to (i), while Mr. Wagner has personal knowledge of certain design
17
18
changes made to the underlying base chip, Mr. Reed’s conclusions regarding the “benefit” do not
19
necessarily follow.
With respect to (ii)-(iv), Mr. Wagner did not provide the factual foundation for those
20
21
statements and/or opinions and cannot serve as a foundation for them. With respect to (iii),
22
MediaTek’s objection to Freescale’s belated attempt to provide an evidentiary basis upon which
23
Reed did not rely is SUSTAINED. With respect to (iii)-(iv), the Court RESERVES as to whether the
24
Weinecke Deposition referenced in the report provides adequate support (independently or in
25
combination with Wagner’s testimony). Freescale shall deliver to the Court a copy of the transcript
26
of the same.
27
2. With respect to the “Crown Jewel” document (Exh. 6 to the Park Deposition), the
28
Court RESERVES ruling and ORDERS the deposition of Kevin Klein, Freescale
2
1
Director of IP Licensing, to be conducted at a mutually agreeable time and place.
2
Freescale shall provide the Court with a copy of its response for the demand to
3
documents referenced during the trial readiness conference.
4
C. Order Regarding Discovery Excerpts - Modification to Order at Docket No. 578
5
With respect to the designation of testimony from David Orris, at 29:24-30:1 and
6
30:3, as the corporate designee for Ford Motor Company, MediaTek is ORDERED
7
to include within its designations those portions of the transcript confirming Mr.
8
Orris’ foundation for the answer provided.
9
The Court reiterates that where genuine issues of dispute do not exist, the parties
10
should be able to resolve these kinds of differences and not waste judicial or client
11
resources; failure to do so reflects poorly on counsel’s professionalism.
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
D. Trial Logistics and Limits
13
1. Parties shall each be afforded an additional 45 minutes for opening statements.
14
2. Parties shall each be afforded 20 minutes to conduct additional voir dire of the
15
jury panel.
16
3. Attached hereto is a copy of the jury questionnaire issued to prescreen prospective
17
jurors. The parties shall meet and confer and be allowed one additional page of
18
questions for prospective jurors to answer on August 27, 2014, and the list of
19
prospective witnesses. The parties shall send an editable version of the same to
20
the Court by August 15, 2014.
21
4. In accordance with Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(b) and Formal
22
Opinion for 466, the parties “may review a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet
23
presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of
24
and during the trial, but...may not communicate directly or through another with a
25
juror or potential juror.” A party “may not, either personally or through another,
26
send an access request to a juror’s electronic social media. An access request is a
27
communication to a juror asking the juror for information that the juror has not
28
3
1
made public and that would not be the type of ex parte communication prohibited
2
by Model Rule 3.5(b).” Id.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: AUGUST 5, 2014
________________________________
HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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?