Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. LSI Corporation et al

Filing 300

Order re Realtek's Proposed Rebuttal Topics. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 2/23/14. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR,
CORPORATION,

13

Case No. C-12-3451-RMW

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

ORDER RE REALTEK REBUTTAL
TOPICS

LSI CORPORATION AND AGERE
SYSTEMS LLC,

[Re: Dkt. No. 294]
16

Defendants.

17
18
19

The court has reviewed the parties’ submissions regarding the subjects Realtek wants to

20

offer from Dr. Leonard, Dr. Shoemake, and Carl Andren in its rebuttal case. To be admissible the

21

evidence must be either impeaching or necessary to counter new, unforeseen facts brought out in the

22

other side’s case. See Daly v. Far Eastern Shipping Co. PLC., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1231, 1238 (W.D.

23

Wash. 2003) aff’d sub nom. Daly v. Fesco Agencies NA Inc., 108 F. App’x 476 (9th Cir. 2004). The

24

court has used this standard in determining whether the proffered rebuttal testimony is admissible.

25
26

Dr. Shoemake:

27

1. Inadmissible

28

2. Inadmissible
ORDER RE REBUTTAL TOPICS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-1-

3. Inadmissible

2

4. Admissible

3

5. Inadmissible

4

6. Admissible

5

7. Inadmissible

6

8. Inadmissible

7

9. Inadmissible

8

10. Inadmissible

9

11. Inadmissible

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

12. Inadmissible

11

13. Inadmissible

12

14. Inadmissible

13

15. Inadmissible

14

16. Admissible, but limited to the topic of whether voice capability was an application of the

15

’867 Patent.

16

17. Inadmissible

17

18. Inadmissible

18

19. Inadmissible

19

20. Inadmissible

20

21. Inadmissible

21

22. Admissible

22

23. Inadmissible

23

24. Inadmissible

24
25
26

Dr. Leonard:
1. Inadmissible, unless Realtek makes a proffer to the court that Dr. Layne-Farrar made an

27

arithmetic error in her new calculation, or that Dr. Layne-Farrar changed her methodology

28

(other than the number of patents she included) when she added the five additional patents.
ORDER RE REBUTTAL TOPICS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-2-

1

2. Inadmissible

2

3. Inadmissible

3

4. Inadmissible

4

5. Inadmissible

5

6. Inadmissible

6

7. Inadmissible

7
8

Carl Andren:
1. Admissible

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

2. Admissible

11

3. Admissible

12
13
14

Dated: February 23, 2014

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER RE REBUTTAL TOPICS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-3-