Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International, Inc. et al

Filing 493

ORDER Re Objections to Defendants Belkin and Netgear's Direct Examination Exhibits for Kurland and Chao. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/06/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2012)

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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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.
)

Case No.: 10-CV-03972-LHK

ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANTS BELKIN AND
NETGEAR’S DIRECT EXAMINATION
EXHIBITS FOR LARRY KURLAND
AND BERNARD CHAO

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
PTX-283s and
PTX-285d

Court’s Ruling on Objections
Overruled in part and sustained in part.
Through the direct examination of their opinion counsel—Mr. Chao for
Netgear and Mr. Kurland for Belkin—Defendants seek to admit PTX-283s,
a 34-page PTO office action dated September 26, 2008, from the
consolidated re-examination of the ’769 patent. This exhibit is a sub-set of
PTX-283, which corresponds to the September 26, 2008 Final Office
Action in the 2005/2006 merged reexamination. In addition, Belkin seeks
to admit PTX-285d, the March 14, 2012 PTO office action in the most
recent reexamination of the ’769 patent.
Defendants’ only stated reasons for introducing these two exhibits are: (1)
to highlight the PTO’s allowance of the reissuance based on its finding that
ArLAN did not disclose a data transfer circuit; and (2) to highlight the
PTO’s cancellation of claims 38 and 39 which Fujitsu asserted against
Defendants. The Court hereby overrules Fujitsu’s objections as to the
portions of these exhibits which relate to the above two issues. The Court
sustains Fujitsu’s objections as to the remainder of these exhibits.

26
27
28

The Court bases its rulings on the following analysis. Pursuant to FRE 403,
the probative value of a wholesale relitigation of the ’769 patent
reexamination would be outweighed by the possibility of confusing the
issues and unduly wasting time. Similarly, the probative value of
1
Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS BELKIN AND NETGEAR’S DIRECT EXAMINATION
EXHIBITS FOR LARRY KURLAND AND BERNARD CHAO

1

Defendants’ efforts to cast aspersions on the quality of the PTO’s
reexamination in general is outweighed by the possibility of confusing the
issues and unduly wasting time.

2
3

However, Defendants must be able to defend themselves against Fujitsu’s
claim that Defendants willfully infringed the ’769 patent through the life of
the patent. Moreover, Fujitsu has attacked the quality and reasonableness
of the opinions of Defendants’ opinion counsel. Thus, the probative value
of Defendants’ reliance upon their opinion counsel’s conclusions and the
bases for those conclusions, e.g., PTO error regarding ArLAN’s absence of
a data transfer circuit, outweighs any potential prejudice or other
considerations pursuant to FRE 403. Furthermore, the PTO’s cancellation
of claims that Fujitsu asserted against Defendants is highly probative of the
quality and reasonableness of Defendants’ opinion counsel’s opinions,
which found these claims to be invalid. Pursuant to FRE 403, such
evidence is admissible. Nonetheless, a limiting instruction is necessary
because such evidence may only be admitted for willfulness and induced
infringement.

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: December 6, 2012

15

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS BELKIN AND NETGEAR’S DIRECT EXAMINATION
EXHIBITS FOR LARRY KURLAND AND BERNARD CHAO