Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International, Inc. et al

Filing 476

ORDER Re: Objections to D-Link Systems, Inc.'s Direct Examination Exhibits for A.J. Wang. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/3/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

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.
)

ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO D-LINK
SYSTEMS, INC.’S DIRECT
EXAMINATION EXHIBITS FOR A.J.
WANG

After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the
considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 403, the Court rules on the parties’
objections as follows:
EXHIBITS
Attachment to DTX
792 dealing with
interim office
actions

18
19

Court’s Ruling on Objections
Sustained. Defendants’ Exhibit Number 792 is the January 14, 2011
opinion letter from D-Link’s opinion counsel, Mr. E. Robert Yoches, to DLink’s outside counsel, Christine Yang. D-Link intends to admit this
exhibit through the direct examination of Mr. Wang, D-Link’s corporate
“relier.” Fujitsu does not object to the use of the January 2011 opinion
letter during the direct examination of Mr. Wang. ECF No. 470.
However, Fujitsu objects to the documents that were attached to the opinion
letter. Specifically, Fujitsu objects to the exhibits that involve interim
office actions.

20
21

In Fujitsu’s Motion in Limine #2, the Court already ruled that, pursuant to
FRE 403, the potential prejudice of admitting evidence relating to interim
office actions outweighs any probative value. Accordingly, these
documents may not be admitted into evidence at trial.

22
23
24
25

Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK

DTX 526, DTX 592,
DTX 630, DTX 7151

The Court overrules Fujitsu’s objections to DTX 526, 592, 630, and 715,
each of which is a prior art document that was attached to the January 2011

26
27
28

1

As the Court stated previously, the parties are limited to three objections per witness. ECF No.
445, at 362:2–3. Nevertheless, this Order considers all of Fujitsu’s objections to D-Link System’s
Direct Examination Exhibits for December 4, 2012, because they are essentially part of one
objection to DTX 792. Moreover, given the reasonableness with which the parties have raised
1
Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S DIRECT EXAMINATION EXHIBITS

1

Yoches opinion.

2

Although Fujitsu’s objection is predicated on a lack of foundation, Fujitsu
does not actually appear to be contesting the authenticity of these exhibits.
Notably, Fujitsu has already stipulated to the admissibility of DTX 526,
592, 630, and 715 for the limited purpose of lack of willfulness and active
inducement. Moreover, Fujitsu concedes that “it may be appropriate to
admit these exhibits through D-Link’s opinion counsel, Mr. Yoches.” ECF
No. 470 at 3. Therefore, Fujitsu’s objection appears only procedural in
nature. But see Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Media Breakaway, LLC, No. 08-937,
2009 WL 2231678, at 3 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2009) (citing Fenje v. Feld, 301
F. Supp. 2d 781, 789 (N.D. Ill. 2003), for the proposition that “[e]ven if a
party fails to authenticate a document properly or to lay a proper
foundation, the opposing party is not acting in good faith in raising such an
objection if the party nevertheless knows that the document is authentic.”).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 901(a), the Court finds that
D-Link System’s exhibits appear to be genuine on their face and that their
probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect. See United States v.
Black, 767 F.2d 1334, 1342 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that FRE 901(a) only
requires “that the court admit evidence if sufficient proof has been
introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or
identification. The credibility or probative force of the evidence offered is,
ultimately, an issue for the jury.”); see also Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) (stating
that evidence that satisfies the authenticity requirements includes, but is not
limited to, “[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other
distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the
circumstances.”).

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

objections as of late, the Court recognizes that there may be circumstances that warrant an
exception to the Court’s limitation so long as a party can establish good cause.
2
Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.’S DIRECT EXAMINATION EXHIBITS