Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International, Inc. et al

Filing 423

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 413 Stipulation Re Admissibility of Trial Exhibits.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Robert D. Fram ([e-mail]) (CA Bar No. 126750)
Thomas E. Garten ([e-mail]) (CA Bar No. 247122)
Jeffrey T. Pearlman ([e-mail]) (CA Bar No. 254759
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Philip A. Irwin ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice)
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Gary M. Rubman ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice)
R. Jason Fowler ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice)
William E. Zapf ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice)
Brianne Bharkhda ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice)
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Fujitsu Limited

[COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

FUJITSU LIMITED,
Plaintiff,

v.
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., BELKIN,
INC., D-LINK CORPORATION, D-LINK
SYSTEMS, INC., NETGEAR, INC., ZYXEL
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, and
ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADMISSIBILITY
OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, Case No. 10-cv-03972-LHK (PSG)

Case No. 10-cv-03972-LHK (PSG)

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF TRIAL
EXHIBITS
Trial:
Time:
Location:
Before:

November 26, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh

1

Pursuant to the Court’s instructions at the November 1, 2012 Pretrial Conference,

2

Plaintiff Fujitsu Limited (“Fujitsu”) and Defendants Belkin International, Inc., Belkin, Inc.,

5

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Fujitsu and Defendants, that the trial

3
4
6
7
8

D-Link Corporation, D-Link Systems, Inc., and NETGEAR, Inc. (“Defendants”) have
conferred regarding the admissibility of certain trial exhibits, and

exhibits listed in Attachment A to this Stipulation shall be treated as follows:

Table 1: The “PTX” exhibits listed in Table 1 may be admitted into evidence

without restriction. 1

Table 2: The “DTX” exhibits listed in Table 2 may be admitted into evidence

9

without restriction.

10

Table 3: The “DTX” exhibits listed in Table 3 may be admitted into evidence

11

only to show the state of the art at the time of the invention, but not used for

12

purposes of proving invalidity. Pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial Conference Order

13

(Dkt. No. 396) and the November 20, 2012 Transcript of Proceedings, a limiting

14

instruction is required for the exhibits listed in Table 3.

15

Table 4: The “DTX” exhibits listed in Table 4 may be admitted into evidence

16

for the limited purpose of lack of willfulness and active inducement, but shall not be

17

considered for purposes of proving invalidity. Pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial

18

Conference Order (Dkt. No. 396) and the November 20, 2012 Transcript of

19

Proceedings, Dr. Mihran cannot opine on these exhibits and a limiting instruction is

20

required for the exhibits listed in Table 4.

21

Table 5: The “DTX” exhibits listed in Table 5 may be admitted into evidence

22

(i) to show the state of the art at the time of the invention; and (ii) for the limited

23
24
25
26
27
28

purpose of disproving willfulness and active inducement. These exhibits shall not

Defendants note that PTX8, PTX12, PTX16, PTX19, PTX21, PTX33, PTX39, PTX42, PTX48,
PTX54, PTX80, PTX85, PTX89, PTX93, and PTX100 are physical exhibits and related packaging that
they have not yet had an opportunity to inspect. As such, Defendants reserve their rights to object
to these samples if they are not what they purport to be, or if they have been damaged or modified.
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADMISSIBILITY
OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, Case No. 10-cv-03972-LHK (PSG)

1

1

be used as a prior art reference for purposes of proving invalidity. Pursuant to the

4

Table 5.

2
3
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Court’s Pretrial Conference Order (Dkt. No. 396) and the November 20, 2012

Transcript of Proceedings, a limiting instruction is required for the exhibits listed in
Table 6: Fujitsu agrees that it will not dispute the authenticity of the “DTX”

exhibits listed in Table 6. Fujitsu reserves any other objections as to these exhibits.

Table 7: Fujitsu contends that the “DTX” exhibits listed in Table 7 are barred

from the case pursuant to the Court’s Pretrial Conference Order (Dkt. No. 396) and
the November 20, 2012 Transcript of Proceedings (Tr. at 49:5 – 54:25) because

they were not disclosed in Defendants’ invalidity contentions and/or not disclosed
in Defendants’ expert report regarding invalidity. Defendants contend that these
documents may be admitted as “state of the art” under the Court’s order with an

appropriate limiting instruction. Fujitsu does not assert any other objections to the
exhibits listed in Table 7.

Table 8: Fujitsu contends that the exhibits listed in Table 8 are barred by

the Court’s order on Fujitsu’s motion in limine concerning pre-suit correspondence
and licensing discussions. Defendants contend that they may be admitted as to

willfulness and inducement. Fujitsu does not assert any other objections to the

documents in Table 8. If the Court rules that these exhibits may be admitted as to

willfulness and inducement, it is Fujitsu’s position that the Court should provide a
limiting instruction and the documents should be redacted such that only the
information relating to invalidity comes into evidence.

Nothing in this Stipulation shall limit the rights of Fujitsu or Defendants to make

25

any arguments with respect to the merits of the claims and defenses in this action.

28

Limine and/or Daubert issues.

26
27

Fujitsu and Defendants agree that this Stipulation may not be used by either party

to introduce evidence that would be excluded by one of the Court’s rulings on Motions in

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADMISSIBILITY
OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, Case No. 10-cv-03972-LHK (PSG)

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Fujitsu and Defendants further agree that this Stipulation embodies the entire

agreement between them, and that the details of negotiations regarding the preparation of
this Stipulation may not be used by any party in this action to vary the terms of this
agreement.

DATE: November 23, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

DATE: November 23, 2012

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By: /s/ Robert D. Fram 2

Robert D. Fram ([e-mail])
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant FUJITSU LIMITED
LAW OFFICE OF S.J. CHRISTINE YANG
By: /s/ Duncan Palmatier

Duncan Palmatier (CA Bar No. 116692)
E-mail: [e-mail]
S.J. Christine Yang (CA Bar No. 102048)
E-mail: [e-mail]
Victoria Der-Lung Hao (admitted pro hac vice)
E-mail: [e-mail]
The Law Office of S.J. Christine Yang
17220 Newhope Street, Suites 101 & 102
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants D-LINK CORPORATION
and D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.

In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from each of the other signatories hereto.
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADMISSIBILITY
OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, Case No. 10-cv-03972-LHK (PSG)

3

1
2
3
4

DATE: November 23, 2012

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

DATE: November 23, 2012

REED SMITH LLP

5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

By: /s/ David Enzminger

David Enzminger (CA Bar No. 137065)
E-mail: [e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants BELKIN
INTERNATIONAL INC. and BELKIN, INC.
By: /s/ William R. Overend

William R. Overend (CA Bar No. 180209)
E-mail: [e-mail]
John P. Bovich (CA Bar No. 150688)
E-mail: [e-mail]
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant NETGEAR, INC.

20

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATE: _________________, 2012
November 25

21
22
24
25

By: ______________________________________
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Court Judge

26
27
28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADMISSIBILITY
OF TRIAL EXHIBITS, Case No. 10-cv-03972-LHK (PSG)

4

ATTACHMENT A

Table 1
Plaintiff’s Exhibits Admitted Into Evidence Without Restriction
PTX1 – PTX24
PTX26 – PTX67
PTX70 – PTX105
PTX107
PTX109
PTX110 – PTX160
PTX163
PTX175
PTX176
PTX179
PTX182 – PTX204
PTX206 – PTX210
PTX212 – PTX215
PTX218
PTX222
PTX228 – PTX274
PTX279 – PTX288
PTX290 – PTX300 1

Plaintiff’s Exhibits

Pursuant to the Court’s ruling on Fujitsu’s motion in limine #4, PTX297 – PTX300 are
admitted for the limited purpose of establishing notice. Other portions of these exhibits
will be redacted.
1

1

Table 2
Defendants’ Exhibits Admitted Into Evidence Without Restriction
DTX1
DTX2
DTX3
DTX12
DTX22
DTX27
DTX40
DTX41
DTX49
DTX50
DTX51
DTX53
DTX55
DTX59
DTX71
DTX73
DTX75 – DTX85
DTX87
DTX89 – DTX91
DTX126
DTX129 – DTX135
DTX138 – DTX148
DTX160 – DTX167
DTX169 – DTX173
DTX175
DTX177 – DTX182
DTX188
DTX202
DTX205
DTX207
DTX208
DTX215
DTX216
DTX217
DTX239
DTX250
DTX267
DTX268

Defendants’ Exhibits

2

DTX270 – DTX273
DTX293 – DTX295
DTX310
DTX318
DTX321 – DTX324
DTX327
DTX335 – DTX339
DTX341 – DTX346
DTX348 – DTX350
DTX357
DTX361
DTX362
DTX364 – DTX367
DTX369 – DTX377
DTX380 – DTX402
DTX409
DTX410
DTX416
DTX425
DTX427 – DTX429
DTX432
DTX433
DTX439
DTX457
DTX462
DTX475 – DTX478
DTX481
DTX488 – DTX490
DTX494 – DTX507
DTX509 – DTX525
DTX529
DTX531
DTX559
DTX564
DTX570
DTX575 – DTX580
DTX586 – DTX589
DTX595 – DTX597
DTX599
DTX600
DTX616
DTX618
DTX619

Defendants’ Exhibits

3

DTX632
DTX641
DTX663
DTX710
DTX713
DTX721
DTX722
DTX729
DTX733 – DTX735
DTX766
DTX779
DTX780 – DTX785
DTX789 – DTX791
DTX801
DTX819 – DTX829
DTX831 – DTX833
DTX837
DTX838
DTX840
DTX841 – DTX847
DTX851
DTX855 – DTX861

Defendants’ Exhibits

4

Table 3
Defendants’ Exhibits Admitted Into Evidence To Show State Of The Art
(Limiting Instruction Required)
DTX104
DTX112
DTX120
DTX184
DTX185
DTX187
DTX189
DTX201
DTX213
DTX214
DTX218
DTX220
DTX221
DTX278
DTX532
DTX560
DTX582
DTX590
DTX591
DTX592
DTX593
DTX630
DTX715

Defendants’ Exhibits

5

Table 4
Defendants’ Exhibits Admitted Into Evidence As To Willfulness Or Inducement
(Limiting Instruction Required)
DTX32
DTX184
DTX187
DTX189
DTX526
DTX560
DTX592
DTX630
DTX715

Defendants’ Exhibits
(Belkin only; admit claim chart but not letter)
(Netgear only)
(Netgear only )
(Netgear only)
(Netgear and D-Link only)
(Belkin only)
(Netgear and D-Link only)
(Netgear and D-Link only)
(Netgear and D-Link only)

6

Table 5
Defendants’ Exhibits Admitted Into Evidence To Show State Of The Art And As To
Willfulness Or Inducement (Limiting Instruction Required)
DTX184
DTX187
DTX189
DTX560
DTX592
DTX630
DTX715

Defendants’ Exhibits

7

Table 6
Defendants’ Exhibits For Which There Is No Dispute As To Authenticity, But For
Which Fujitsu May Assert Other Objections
DTX210
DTX818

Defendants’ Exhibits

8

Table 7
Defendants’ Exhibits For Which There Is No Dispute As To Authenticity, But Which
Are Subject To The Court’s Ruling On November 20, 2012
DTX58
DTX97
DTX103
DTX109
DTX110
DTX191
DTX192
DTX193
DTX199
DTX200
DTX203
DTX204
DTX206
DTX219
DTX581
DTX601
DTX602
DTX603
DTX604
DTX605
DTX730
DTX731
DTX732

Defendants’ Exhibits

9

Table 8
Defendants’ Exhibits For Which There Is No Dispute As To Authenticity,
But For Which There Is A Dispute About Whether They Are Barred By
Fujitsu’s Motion In Limine Regarding Pre-Suit Communications
DTX30
DTX31
DTX33
DTX34
DTX420
DTX421
DTX422
DTX424
DTX463
DTX487
DTX543
DTX572
DTX657
DTX677
DTX793

Defendants’ Exhibits

10