Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 1844

Order RE: Scope of Cross-Examination of Dr. Mowry. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 4/27/14. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
)
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
)
corporation; and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
)
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants. )
)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: SCOPE OF CROSSEXAMINATION OF DR. MOWRY

The parties have submitted Trial Briefs that address the scope of Dr. Mowry’s cross-

22

examination with respect to his additional testimony on the ’647 Patent after the Court provides

23

the jury with the two claim constructions of the ’647 Patent from Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

24

(“Motorola”), 2012-1548, -1549 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2014).

25

Having considered those briefs, the relevant law, and the parties’ oral arguments presented

26

on April 25, 2014, the Court concludes that Samsung shall be permitted to cross-examine Dr.

27

Mowry regarding whether the opinions Dr. Mowry provided in his original and rebuttal trial

28

testimony are inconsistent with the Court’s new constructions. The Court finds that the probative
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. MOWRY

1

value of such cross-examination would be substantial, as the jury needs to understand Dr. Mowry’s

2

opinions in his original and rebuttal trial testimony in light of the new constructions. Accordingly,

3

the Court will permit questions regarding whether Dr. Mowry’s trial testimony is inconsistent with

4

the new claim constructions.

5

On the other hand, the Court finds that cross-examination questions regarding whether Dr.

6

Mowry’s opinions in his original and rebuttal trial testimony were wrong, erroneous, or incorrect

7

will not be permitted, because such questions would be unfair. An expert’s opinions regarding

8

proper construction that pre-dates a court’s construction are generally not proper impeachment.

9

See FLOE Int’l, Inc. v. Newsmans’ Mfg. Inc., No. 04-5120, 2007 WL 902809, at *9 (D. Minn.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Mar. 12, 2007). At the time that Dr. Mowry gave his opinions, the Court had not construed the two

11

claim terms in the Motorola opinion. After four weeks of trial, the Court now construes the two

12

terms consistent with the Federal Circuit’s constructions in the Motorola opinion. It would be

13

unfair to attack Dr. Mowry’s credibility solely because he was relying on the absence of claim

14

constructions by the Court when Dr. Mowry gave his original and rebuttal trial testimony.

15

Samsung’s reliance on this Court’s overruling of Samsung’s objection to Apple’s cross-

16

examination question of Dr. Wigdor regarding whether Dr. Wigdor had previously opined that

17

Samsung’s products infringed the ’172 Patent is inapposite. The Court overruled Samsung’s

18

relevance and 403 objections because Dr. Wigdor continued, even after the Court’s order granting

19

summary judgment of infringement of the ’172 Patent, to label Samsung’s products as “accused”

20

of rather than “infringing” the ’172 Patent. See Tr. 2035:18-2036:1. Specifically, Dr. Wigdor

21

prepared and presented a timeline demonstrative that labeled the release date for the “First Accused

22

Device (Admire)” and “Last Accused Device (Galaxy Note) Released.” (emphasis in original).

23

The Court recognizes that the distinction between whether Dr. Mowry’s opinions are

24

inconsistent with the new claim construction and whether Dr. Mowry’s opinions are wrong is a

25

fine one, which will need to be further delineated on a question-by-question basis.

26

The parties have also briefed how to instruct the jury regarding the new constructions.

27

Having considered those arguments, the Court will provide the following instruction to the jury

28

regarding the ’647 Patent claim constructions:
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. MOWRY

1
2
3

I will provide constructions for two additional terms of Claim 9 of the ’647 patent. The
constructions are being handed to you for the Chart of Asserted Patent Claims Tab in your
Jury Binder and will be included in the Final Jury Instructions. Each side will have one
hour for additional trial testimony to address these two constructions.

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated: April 27, 2014
6
7

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER RE: SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. MOWRY