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)

Download PDF
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 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] 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?