Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 273

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE re (254 in 5:13-cv-01776-PSG) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Strike filed by Apple, Inc., Cellco Partnership, (255 in 5:13-cv-01778-PSG) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Strike filed by HTC America Inc, AT&T Mobility LLC, HTC Corporation, (257 in 5:13-cv-02023-PSG) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Strike filed by AT&T Mobility LLC, Apple, Inc., (278 in 5:13-cv-01777-PSG) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Strike filed by AT&T Mobility LLC, Apple, Inc., (248 in 5:13-cv-01844-PSG) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants' Letter Brief in Support of Motion to Strike filed by HTC America Inc, Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, Cellco Partnership. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on August 8, 2014. (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2014)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6

ADAPTIX, INC.,

7

v.

8

Plaintiff,

APPLE INC., et al.,
Defendants.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ADAPTIX, INC.,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.
Defendants.

14
15

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,

16
v.
17

AT&T, Inc., et al.,

18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24

ADAPTIX, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
VERIZON WIRELESS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

25
26
27
28
1
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

Case No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STRIKE
(Re: Docket No. 254-4)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01777-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE
(Re: Docket Nos. 278-4)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01778-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STRIKE
(Re: Docket No. 255-4)

Case No. 5:13-cv-01844-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STRIKE
(Re: Docket Nos. 248-4)

1

ADAPTIX, INC.,

2
3
4

Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.
Defendants.

5
6
7
8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-02023-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE
(Re: Docket No. 257-4)

Before the court are various disputes about the report of Plaintiff Adaptix Inc.’s expert,
Micheal Caloyannides. While the particulars are unique to this patent case, the bigger issue is not:
how tightly are experts bound to the theories disclosed in their patron’s contentions?

9
This district has long required that patentees disclose their infringement contentions early in
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

the case:
Not later than 14 days after the Initial Case Management Conference, a party
claiming patent infringement shall serve on all parties a “Disclosure of Asserted
Claims and Infringement Contentions.” Separately for each opposing party, the
“Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions” shall contain the
following information:
a) Each claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly infringed by each
opposing party, including for each claim the applicable statutory
subsections of 35 U.S.C. §271 asserted;
b) Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product,
device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality (“Accused
Instrumentality”) of each opposing party of which the party is aware.
This identification shall be as specific as possible. Each product, device,
and apparatus shall be identified by name or model number, if known.
Each method or process shall be identified by name, if known, or by any
product, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results in the
practice of the claimed method or process;

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

c) A chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each asserted
claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality, including for each
limitation that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the
identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused
Instrumentality that performs the claimed function.
d) For each claim which is alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an
identification of any direct infringement and a description of the acts of
the alleged indirect infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct
infringement. Insofar as alleged direct infringement is based on joint acts
2
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

1
2
3

of multiple parties, the role of each such party in the direct infringement
must be described.
e) Whether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be literally
present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused
Instrumentality;

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

f) For any patent that claims priority to an earlier application, the priority
date to which each asserted claim allegedly is entitled; and
g) If a party claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the right to
rely, for any purpose, on the assertion that its own apparatus, product,
device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality practices the
claimed invention, the party shall identify, separately for each asserted
claim, each such apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or
other instrumentality that incorporates or reflects that particular claim.
h) If a party claiming patent infringement alleges willful infringement, the
basis for such allegation.
Patent L.R. 3-1.
In its infringement contentions, Adaptix charges infringement of various apparatus and

14

method claims in its patents. The infringement issue focuses on whether and how mobile devices

15

(called User Equipment or “UEs”) report channel quality indicators (“CQI”) to base stations. In the

16

LTE Standard implemented by Defendants’ accused products, there are three modes of CQI

17
feedback reporting: Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3. In Mode 1, the UE reports a wideband CQI
18
19

value for the entire bandwidth. In Mode 2, the UE reports a wideband value, along with individual

20

values associated with only some of the subbands in the bandwidth. In Mode 3, the UE reports a

21

wideband value, along with individual values associated with all of the subbands in the bandwidth.

22
23
24

The parties agree Mode 1 reporting is non-infringing. Regarding Mode 2, Adaptix in its
contentions charges infringement of the apparatus claims alone and Caloyannides incorporates
these contentions in his report by reference alone. As for Mode 3, Adaptix’s contentions charge

25
26
27
28

infringement of the “subscriber selecting a set of candidate subcarriers” limitation of the method
claims alone by choosing and reporting on all subbands. The contentions do not charge
infringement of the apparatus claims. Caloyannides, in turn, opines that the method claims and in
3
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

1

particular the disputed limited are infringed by choosing and reporting some but not all subbands.

2

He also opines that Mode 3 infringes the apparatus claims. Caloyannides also incorporates by

3

reference the entirety of Adaptix infringement contentions as follows: “my opinions (and this

4

report) incorporate by reference all Infringement Contentions previously served.”

5
6

Defendants take issue with three elements of Caloyannides’ report. First, they point out that
his theory that Mode 3 infringes the apparatus claims was never disclosed in Adaptix’s

7
8
9

infringement contentions. Second, they point out that his theory that Mode 3 infringes the method
claims by choosing and reporting on some, but not all, subbands was never disclosed in Adaptix’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

infringement contentions. Third, they point out that the infringement contentions incorporated by

11

reference cannot be reconciled with many of the opinions Caloyannides otherwise states. For

12

example, while Caloyannides opines only contributory infringement, the contentions assert only

13

induced infringement.

14
Defendants are in the right here. This court has previously explained that “[e]xpert reports
15
16

may not introduce theories not set forth in contentions.” 1 Either experts must “reliably appl[y] the

17

theories disclosed in the contentions to evidence disclosed during fact discovery.” 2 The “question

18

thus becomes, has the expert permissibly specified the application of a disclosed theory, or has the

19

expert impermissibly substituted a new theory altogether?” 3

20
21

To its credit, Adaptix candidly acknowledged at the hearing on this matter that
Caloyannides’ Mode 3 theories were new. Adaptix’s only real response is that the prejudice to

22
Defendants from allowing these new theories to stand will be modest at best. Trial is still many
23
24

months away, and there even remains some time left in the period for expert reports and discovery.
1

25

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK (PSG), 2014 WL 173409, at *1
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014).

26

2

27

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 2499929, at *1
(N.D. Cal. June 27, 2012).

3

28

Apple, 2014 WL 173409 at *1.

4
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

1

While the court would not be so quick to dismiss the prejudice arising from two new infringement

2

theories revealed long after the close of fact discovery, it does not have even have to get there.

3

This court has previously held that, unless the moving party can show diligence, new theories in

4

expert reports cannot stand. 4 In the analogous context of determining whether contentions may

5
6
7
8
9

themselves be amended to add a new theory in the absence of an honest error or administrative
mistake, this court similarly has declined to find good cause to permit a new theory where the
moving party has not demonstrated its diligence. 5 Because Adaptix offers no real explanation of
why it could not have disclosed their new theories in its earlier contentions (or at least sought leave

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to do so), it would not fair to allow Adaptix to do so now through the opinions of Caloyannides.

11

The new theories are deemed stricken from the report.

12
13

As for Caloyannides’ efforts to incorporate by reference, the court finds nothing inherently
wrong with this approach. But the references to theories here such as induced infringement that are

14
no longer asserted and contentions that have been superseded is difficult to follow or reconcile. At
15
16

a minimum, the court needs a clearer articulation of what exactly he is incorporating to police

17

direct examination at trial. To that end, no later than August 14, 2014, Calyonnides shall serve an

18

amended report identifying precisely the contentions he adopts.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: August 8, 2014

21

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
4

26
27

See Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., Case No. 5:11-cv-05973-PSG, 2013 WL
4537838, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (striking new infringement theory that was asserted for
first time in Plaintiff’s expert report).

5

28

See ParPharm, Inc. v. Takeda Pharm Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:13-cv-01927-LHK (PSG), 2014 WL
3704819, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2014).
5
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-1776; -1777; -1778; -1844; -2023
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE