Fujitsu Limited v. Belkin International, Inc. et al

Filing 519

ORDER Re: Objections to Exhibits and Demonstratives For December 11, 2012. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/10/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2012)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

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
EXHIBITS AND DEMONSTRATIVES
FOR DECEMBER 11, 2012

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/
Court’s Ruling on Objections
DEMONSTRATIVES
FUJITSU’S OBJECTIONS
Use of U.S. Patent No. Sustained.
6,108,209 as a
Demonstrative
Fujitsu objects to Defendants’ use of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,209 (“Snap
Together PCMCIA Cards with Laser Tack Welded Seams”) as a
“demonstrative” exhibit to be used during the cross-examination of Dr.
Williams on validity issues. The ’209 patent, which was filed several
years after the application for the Ozawa patent, purports to describe a
“cartridge” for use in PCMCIA applications. Fujitsu notes that the ’209
patent was identified for the first time in this case yesterday; it was not
disclosed in Defendants’ invalidity contentions; it was not identified in
Dr. Mihran’s invalidity report; and it does not appear on Defendants’
exhibit list. Fujitsu argues that this exhibit should be excluded because
its disclosure was untimely and because its use would violate FRE 402
and 403.

25
26
27
28

The Court agrees that disclosure of this demonstrative is untimely.
Pursuant to FRE 403, the Court finds that the potential prejudice to
Fujitsu outweighs any probative value of allowing Defendants to use this
demonstrative.
Demonstratives
Sustained.
relating to ISA and PCI
1
Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS AND DEMONSTRATIVES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

cards and
Fujitsu contends that, on December 9, 2012, Defendants identified four
Motherboards and
new demonstrative exhibits for use with Dr. Williams’s crossMihran rebuttal Slide
examination and Dr. Mihran’s rebuttal testimony:
Nos. 4 and 5
 No. 11 – Motherboard with PCI Express Slots and PCI Slots
containing photographs
 No. 12 – Motherboard with ISA slot cut to expose cross section
of the same
 No. 13 – PCI Express Card
 No. 14 – PCI Card
The Court agrees that disclosure of these demonstratives is untimely.
Pursuant to FRE 403, the Court finds that the potential prejudice to
Fujitsu outweighs any probative value of allowing Defendants to use
these demonstratives and the rebuttal slides containing photographs of
the same.
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS
Slides regarding the
Overruled.
Mizutani Antenna and
Batteries (1, 27, 29–34) Defendants object to the fact that Fujitsu plans to use a number of slides
focusing on Figure 5 of the Mizutani reference. Defendants contend that
these slides “appear to relate to some argument that the antenna in
Mizutani must be attached to the plastic edge surrounding the printed
circuit board card with screws, or otherwise arguing that the plastic
housing [i]s a ‘key part’ of Mizutani’s invention.” ECF No. 513, at 2.
Defendants contend that these slides and any related argument should be
excluded as they are outside the scope of Dr. Williams’s report.
Slides 27, 29 - 34:
Fujitsu contends that, although Dr. Williams’s report did not cite Figure
5 of Mizutani expressly, Dr. Williams did cite Figure 4 of Mizutani,
which is merely a different perspective on the same device. Further, Dr.
Williams’s report discusses various mechanical features of Mizutani that
are important to the distinction between a card and a cartridge.
Given the extensive discussion of the Mizutani reference in Dr.
Williams’s report, in addition to the citation to the Mizutani document
itself—especially Figure 4—the Court finds that these slides are
sufficiently within the scope of Dr. Williams’s expert report to be used
during trial. See, e.g., Williams Report ¶¶50, 165, 171, 207, 223, 241,
and 246 (describing distinctions between cartridges and cards, including
that a cartridge “has a printed circuit board surrounded by a claim-shell
plastic housing,” and “that external transmission devices . . . need to be
separately powered with batteries”). In addition, the Court finds that
these slides are responsive to Dr. Mirhan’s demonstrative, presented
during his testimony, that showed the printed circuit board separated
from the rest of the cartridge—which was not a point made in Dr.
Mihran’s expert report. Therefore, pursuant to FRE 403, the Court finds
that the probative value of these slides outweighs any potential prejudice
to Defendants.
Slides 1: In Slide 1, Fujitsu also states “Mizutani discloses a cartridge to
2
Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS AND DEMONSTRATIVES

1

a Person of Ordinary Skill because . . . Mizutani identified the housing as
a ‘key part’ of the invention.” Fujitsu contends that the “key part”
language appears in the written description of Figure 5. Pursuant to FRE
403, Defendants’ objection is overruled.

2
3
4
5

Slides regarding
“configuring” ARLAN
(14, 15, 17, and 18)

Sustained.

Wireless Access, Inc.
Card Demonstrative
and Slide

Sustained.

6
7
8
9
10

Defendants argue that Fujitsu recently disclosed a number of slides
claiming that the ARLAN device is not inserted into a slot because it
needs to be “configured.” Defendants point out that, in his report, Dr.
Williams listed a number of steps the user had to take to insert ARLAN,
but he never listed “configuration.” Although Fujitsu contends that this
material is “expressly provided in Dr. Williams’s report,” the report does
not appear to discuss “configuring” ARLAN. Accordingly, the Court
agrees with Defendants that these slides are outside the scope of Dr.
Williams’s report, and therefore any reference to “configure” should be
removed.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

The Court agrees that disclosure of this demonstrative and slide is
untimely. Pursuant to FRE 403, the Court finds that the potential
prejudice to Defendants outweighs any probative value of allowing
Fujitsu to use this demonstrative and slide.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated: December 10, 2012
18
19

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No: 10-CV-03972-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS AND DEMONSTRATIVES