Realtek Semiconductor Corporation v. LSI Corporation et al

Filing 308

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte denying 268 Realtek's Motion to Proffer ITC Initial Determination; denying 280 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; granting 292 Motion Precluding Further Evidence and Argument as to the P.A Report. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2014)

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

ORDERS ON RECENTLY MADE
MOTIONS

LSI CORPORATION AND AGERE
SYSTEMS LLC,

[Re: Dkt. Nos. 268, 280, 292]
16
17

Defendants.

18
19

These orders address recently raised or renewed issues.

20

1. LSI's Motion to Preclude Further Evidence and Argument Relating to the P.A.

21

Consulting Group’s “802.11 Patent Landscape: PA’s Patent Landscape Analysis”

22

LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “LSI”) move to preclude further

23

evidence and argument relating to the P.A. Consulting Group’s “802.11 Patent Landscape: PA’s

24

patent landscape analysis” (the “P.A. Report”). Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”) offered

25

the P.A. Report for the first time during the examination of Dr. Gregory Leonard, after Dr. Leonard

26

referenced the report as confirming his opinion as to the number of standard essential patents that

27

exist. The report apparently came out after Dr. Leonard completed his report. Realtek had never

28

previously disclosed the report to LSI, nor did Realtek supplement Dr. Leonard or Dr. Matthew
ORDERS ON RECENT MOTIONS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-1-

1

Shoemake’s expert reports to include the P.A. Report. Moreover, Realtek never disclosed the P.A.

2

Report as a potential exhibit at trial.

3

Expert reports must include a complete statement of the expert’s opinions, the basis and

4

reasons for them, and any data or other information considered when forming them. Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

26(a)(2)(B). If a party fails to comply with the disclosure rules, “the party is not allowed to use that

6

information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure

7

was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Here, the failure to disclose the

8

P.A. Report was not substantially justified or harmless. LSI was understandably surprised when Dr.

9

Leonard alluded to the P.A. Report, and then again when Realtek sought to admit the report into

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

evidence. Realtek had ample opportunity to supplement its experts’ reports and to disclose the P.A.

11

Report for use as an exhibit at trial, yet it did not do so. LSI has not had the opportunity to examine

12

the report’s reliability or to consider whether experts in the field would rely on the report. Realtek

13

is thus precluded from introducing any further evidence or argument relating to the P.A. Report. See

14

Guzik Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. W. Digital Corp., 5:11-CV-03786-PSG, 2013 WL 6070414, at

15

*4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (“In determining whether to preclude introduction of evidence

16

pursuant to FRCP 37, courts consider (1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would

17

be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to which allowing the

18

evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of the evidence, and (5) the nondisclosing

19

party's explanation for it[s] failure to disclose the evidence.”). LSI’s motion is GRANTED.

20

2. LSI's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Damages

21

LSI’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that Realtek has failed to meet its burden of

22

persuasion on damages (see Dkt. 280) was previously orally addressed (Trial Tr. 1049:13-1050:3).

23

The court denied LSI’s motion on the record. For the reasons stated on the record, LSI’s motion for

24

judgment as a matter of law is DENIED. See Dkt. No. 280.

25

3. Realtek’s Motion to Proffer the ITC’s Preliminary Finding of Noninfringement

26

The court has previously made clear in response to Realtek’s repeated attempts to offer the

27

ITC’s preliminary finding of noninfringement that Realtek is not permitted to use the ITC’s initial

28

determination or LSI’s recent motion to terminate the ITC investigation as to the ’867 Patent. See,
ORDERS ON RECENT MOTIONS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-2-

1

e.g., Dkt. No. 222 at 1-2. Realtek’s motion to proffer this evidence is DENIED. See Dkt. No. 268.

2

Even if the preliminary finding were deemed relevant, its probative value is substantially

3

outweighed by F.R.E. 403 concerns of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues and misleading the

4

jury.

5
6

Dated: February 24, 2014

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

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
26
27
28
ORDERS ON RECENT MOTIONS
Case No. C-12-3451-RMW
RDS

-3-