VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation
Filing
763
ORDER DENYING 652 VLSI'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (public redacted version of sealed order filed at 722 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/23/2023. (blflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2023)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 17-cv-05671-BLF
10
INTEL CORPORATION,
11
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING VLSI'S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Re: ECF No. 652]
12
Plaintiff VLSI Technology, LLC (“VLSI”) filed a Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge
13
14
Nathanael M. Cousins’ Nondispositive Pretrial Order (ECF No. 604 (“Order”)), which struck two
15
of VLSI damages expert Dr. Ryan Sullivan’s theories on the grounds that VLSI did not disclose
16
them in its damages contentions. ECF No. 652 (“Mot.”). VLSI asks this Court to reverse Judge
17
Cousins’ Order on the grounds that it “overlooked that VLSI . . . disclosed and explained both of
18
Dr. Sullivan’s theories, but used slightly different labels to do so.” Mot. at 1.
VLSI’s motion is DENIED for the reasons described below.
19
20
21
I.
BACKGROUND
VLSI accuses Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 (“TBMT”)
22
feature of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836 (the “’836 Patent”). On May 16, 2023, Intel
23
moved to strike, inter alia, two of VLSI damages expert Dr. Ryan Sullivan’s ’836 Patent damages
24
theories – Value Per Unit (“VPU”) and Net Present Value (“NPV”) – on the grounds that VLSI
25
failed to disclose either theory in its Fifth Supplemental Damages Contentions (ECF No. 476-1,
26
(“FSDC”)). ECF No. 473. Judge Cousins ordered additional briefing on the motion, which the
27
parties provided. ECF Nos. 502, 507. On August 30, 2023, Judge Cousins issued an order
28
granting Intel’s motion to strike the VPU and NPV damages theories. Order at 8. Pursuant to
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Civil Local Rule 72-2, VLSI filed an objection to the
2
Order (Mot.) and, pursuant to the Court’s briefing schedule (ECF No. 655), Intel responded. ECF
3
No. 699 (“Opp.”).
4
II.
Pretrial orders issued by a Magistrate Judge may be reversed only if they contain “clear
5
United States District Court
Northern District of California
LEGAL STANDARD
6
error.” Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
7
III.
DISCUSSION
Judge Cousins’ Findings
8
A.
9
VLSI argues that the following formula disclosed in its FSDC provides the basis for both
10
its NPV and VPU damages theories. Mot. at 1–2 (citing FSDC at 99). VLSI asserted in its
11
briefing to Judge Cousins that “the NPV and VPU values” are the economic value parameter used
12
in the formula, and that both “derive from two Intel documents – 89699DOC01565734 and
13
93000DOC03579403.” Order at 7 (citing ECF No. 502 at 8).
14
15
16
17
Judge Cousins first found that the FSDC properly disclosed that “experts may rely on
18
‘Intel data and testimony.’” Order at 6 (quoting FSDC at 82). Judge Cousins then addressed the
19
two documents put forth by VLSI to determine if they disclosed the VPU and NPV theories.
20
Judge Cousins determined that the first document, 89699DOC01565734, was not properly
21
disclosed. He noted that the document was cited three times in the FSDC. Id. He found that the
22
first two references appear in VLSI’s description of the technical benefits of the ’836 Patent. Id.
23
(citing FSDC at 49, 57). He then found that the third reference appears in a separate section
24
describing the costs associated with implementing the accused features, as opposed to the value
25
the technology brings to Intel. Id.; compare FSDC at 101 (discussing costs associated with the
26
accused technology) with ECF No. 476-3 (“Sullivan Report”) ¶ 408 (“Intel anticipated TBMT 3.0
27
to generate $345 million in net present value (“NPV”) for desktop (“DT”) and mobile (“MB”)
28
products”). Due to the disparate placement of such references, Judge Cousins concluded that it
2
1
would be unreasonable for Intel to infer that VLSI would implement the computations to
2
demonstrate economic value. Id.
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Cousins’ finding regarding document
3
4
89699DOC01565734. The three citations to 89699DOC01565734 in the FSDC pertain to
5
technical specifications or costs and have nothing to do with VPU or NPV damages, much less
6
economic value of any kind. See FSDC at 49 (“Intel also ran a test showing
”) (citing 89699DOC01565734); id. at 57
7
8
(“VLSI also expects that its experts will analyze the recently-produced data illustrating Intel’s
9
testing of the accused features.”) (citing 89699DOC01565734); id. at 102 (“Another document
10
indicates that
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
”) (citing 89699DOC01565734).
12
Judge Cousins found that the second document, 93000DOC03579403, “suffers from
13
14
similar infirmities.” Order at 7. He specifically noted that, “[f]or example, VLSI points to one
15
citation among over ten pages of string citations” (id. (citing FSDC at 85)) and concluded that
16
“[s]uch vague and imprecise citations to internal documents and analyses does not give Intel
17
notice of VLSI’s theory and promotes the ‘type of inferential guesswork . . . [the] damages
18
contentions are intended to avoid.’” Id. (quoting Looksmart Grp., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 386 F.
19
Supp. 3d 1222, 1234 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
The Court disagrees with Judge Cousins’ finding that the second document,
20
21
93000DOC03579403, was not properly disclosed. But as discussed below, this disagreement does
22
not change the outcome. While, as Judge Cousins notes, one citation to 93000DOC03579403 is in
23
a nearly 14-page string cite, the document is cited eight other times throughout the FSDC. See
24
FSDC at 49, 83, 84, 98, 102, 167. Some of these citations correspond to technical information,
25
but three citations specifically refer to economic assessments that related to economic value. See
26
FSDC at 49 (“Intel noted that
27
‘
28
93000DOC03579403); id. at 83 (“For example, one Intel document indicates
, and that
’”) (quoting
3
1
2
”) (quoting 93000DOC03579403–04); id. at 84 (“Intel’s internal documents relating to
marketing and pricing strategy demonstrate
3
, including Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 (which is accused of infringing the ’836
4
.”) (citing, inter alia,
5
Patent),
6
93000DOC03579403) (emphasis added). The Court concludes that these three citations constitute
7
a sufficient disclosure that TBMT could be linked to damages theories including, for example, an
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
Judge Cousins found that because these two documents were not properly cited, “VLSI
10
does not disclose either the NPV or VPU as theories of recovery in its Contentions.” Order at 7.
11
Judge Cousins also addressed Intel’s argument that VLSI did not properly disclose
12
underlying data for Dr. Sullivan’s VPU and NPV theories. Intel argued in its discovery letter to
13
Judge Cousins that “Sullivan relies on twelve Intel documents ([Sullivan Report] ¶¶ 408-09, 414,
14
417, 428, 429, 430) for the inputs to his calculation, but VLSI did not disclose using a single one
15
in its damages calculation.” ECF No. 473. Instead, Intel argued, “[VLSI] buried four of them in
16
string cites among hundreds of other documents and did not cite eight of them at all.” Id. VLSI
17
responded in its supplemental briefing to Judge Cousins that it properly “disclose[d] eight of
18
twelve Intel documents Dr. Sullivan supposedly relies on for his damages opinion. Two of these
19
eight documents are duplicates of documents cited in the contentions, and Dr. Sullivan uses them
20
merely to provide background for his analysis.” ECF No. 502 at 8. Judge Cousins agreed with
21
Intel, and found that VLSI’s “scattershot references to Intel data or documents do not support
22
Sullivan’s application of the NPV or VPU calculations.” Order at 6 (emphasis added).
23
The Court reviews Judge Cousins’ Order for clear error.
24
B.
25
VLSI argues that Dr. Sullivan’s VPU theory is “based on Intel’s anticipated ‘sell-up’
Value Per Unit (VPU) Data Was Not Properly Disclosed
26
benefit of TBMT.” Mot. at 3. Specifically, Dr. Sullivan opines in his report that adding TMBT
27
would “result in an
28
” in a “per-unit reasonable royalty calculation.” Id. (citing Sullivan Report
4
1
¶¶ 428–29). Intel takes issue first with VLSI’s use of the terms “sell-up” and “upsell” and second
2
with the source of the
First, VLSI argues that the terms “sell-up” and “upsell” fairly disclose a VPU damages
3
4
theory. VLSI argues that it “repeatedly disclosed that TBMT enables Intel to charge a price
5
premium for products that have TBMT, and thereby provides ‘sell-up’ and ‘up sell’ benefits.”
6
Mot. at 3. Specifically, VLSI claims it disclosed that “Intel’s documentation estimates that
7
[TBMT] ‘
8
84).
9
United States District Court
Northern District of California
numbers. Opp. at 3–4.
.’” Id. (quoting FSDC at
Intel responds that VLSI never argued to Judge Cousins that “it referred to Dr. Sullivan’s
10
methodologies as a ‘sell up’” and has thus waived it. Opp. at 1. Intel also argues that “VLSI’s
11
contentions refer to a ‘sell up’ just one single time, in a section describing alleged technical
12
benefits of TBMT.” Id. at 4 (citing FSDC at 50:3–12) (emphasis in original).
13
The Court agrees with VLSI. First, the Court finds no functional distinction in the
14
meaning of the terms “upsell,” “sell up,” increase in “average sale price” (“ASP”), and increase in
15
“value per unit.” These terms all stand for a simple damages principle: an increase in the sale
16
price of a unit. The Court finds that VLSI did not waive this argument because it addressed
17
disclosure of increases in ASP in its supplemental briefing to Judge Cousins. ECF No. 502 at 8
18
(citing FSDC at 82). The Court also disagrees with Intel’s claim that “upsell” and “sell-up” are
19
only referred to in a technical context. The FSDC clearly disclosed the
20
in an economic context. See FSDC at 83 (“For example, one Intel document indicates an
21
”) (citing 93000DOC03579403–04); id. at 84.
22
Second, VLSI disagrees with Judge Cousins’ determination that it “provided only
23
‘scattershot references’ to underlying documents, which ‘do not support Sullivan’s application of
24
the NPV or VPU calculations.’” Mot. at 1 (quoting Order at 6). VLSI cites to its disclosure of the
25
upsell, and “several additional documents” cited in the FSDC, then claims that the documents
26
“discuss these same benefits, each of which were also discussed in Dr. Sullivan’s report, or are
27
substantively identical to documents discussed in Dr. Sullivan’s report.” Id. at 4.
28
Intel responds that VLSI did not “disclose it would use the
5
sales numbers”
1
cited in paragraphs 428–430 of the Sullivan Report and that it therefore “had no way to know from
2
VLSI’s contentions that Dr. Sullivan would get to a damages number using an
3
increase from Intel’s documents or a VPU calculation.” Opp. at 3
The Court agrees with Intel. VLSI explains that Dr. Sullivan’s VPU theory is based on
4
5
data that TBMT would “result in
.” Mot. at 3. But VLSI does not address disclosure of
6
7
those
in the FSDC. Even if VLSI properly disclosed a VPU theory in the context of a
, Dr. Sullivan does not utilize the
8
9
figure in his damages
opinions. VLSI failed to disclose underlying data for a VPU damages calculation based on the
sales increases which were clearly identified in documents in existence at the time of
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
sales
11
filing damages contentions. Since VLSI does not squarely address this disclosure, the Court finds
12
no clear error in Judge Cousins’ determination.
Having found no clear error in Judge Cousins’ determination that VLSI did not properly
13
14
disclose the data underlying Dr. Sullivan’s VPU theory in the FSDC, the Court DENIES VLSI’s
15
Motion for Relief as to the VPU theory.
16
C.
17
VLSI argues that the FSDC discloses the documents Dr. Sullivan used for his NPV theory.
Net Present Value (NPV) Theory and Data Were Not Properly Disclosed
18
Mot. at 5 (citing Sullivan Report at ¶¶ 413–419). First, VLSI asserts that an FSDC citation to an
19
email describing TBMT as a “
20
Cousins “appears to have overlooked” the email. Mot. at 5 (citing 93000DOC02370250).
21
Second, VLSI argues that it “cited at least four separate versions of the specific NPV documents in
22
VLSI’s discussions of the ’836 Patent’s technical value and benefits.” Id.
” disclosed the NPV theory, but that Judge
Intel responds to both arguments. First, Intel argues that Dr. Sullivan does not purport to
23
24
use the
figure from 93000DOC02370250 for any part of or input to his NPV
25
computation. Opp. at 5 (citing Sullivan Report at ¶¶ 413–427). Intel adds that VLSI’s contentions
26
cite the document only in a section addressing purported technical benefits, which is not sufficient
27
to disclose a NPV theory. Id. (citing FSDC at 50). Second, Intel argues that “VLSI did not
28
disclose in its contentions that any of [the NPV documents have] anything to do with NPV or a
6
1
damages computation” but instead “cited the documents only as relating to issues such as
2
performance benefits, testing, or costs associated with the accused feature.” Id. (citing FSDC at
3
49:8–16, 56:20–58:9, 101:26–102:6, 128:16–139:19).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Cousins’ exclusion of the NPV theory. First, Judge
5
Cousins hardly “overlooked” the email; VLSI’s briefing never directed Judge Cousins to the
6
document. VLSI claimed instead that the two documents Judge Cousins did review
7
(89699DOC01565734 and 93000DOC03579403) were the “two specific Intel documents that
8
VLSI cited throughout its contentions” that disclose VPU and NPV. ECF No. 502 at 8. Despite
9
this, VLSI did not cite either the quote, the dollar figure, or even the page number from the FSDC
10
that contained the citation (FSDC at 50) in its original briefing to Judge Cousins. A court cannot
11
be expected to find a single sentence and citation buried in a 226-page document without direction
12
from the parties’ briefing.
13
Even if VLSI had properly made this argument to Judge Cousins, the quote does not
14
properly disclose the NPV theory. VLSI’s only basis for the NPV theory is the single quote from
15
a once-cited document claiming that TBMT represents a “
16
FSDC at 50 (quoting 93000DOC02370250). A single email claiming a financial opportunity with
17
no other context hardly puts an opposing party on notice of a NPV damages theory.
18
” for Intel.
VLSI’s second argument that other documents disclose the NPV theory also fails. The
19
four new documents put forth by VLSI (Mot. at 5) are contained in a string cite in the FSDC
20
describing “the recently-produced data illustrating Intel’s testing of the accused features.” FSDC
21
at 57 (the fifth document listed is 89699DOC01565734, which Judge Cousins and this Court agree
22
did not properly disclose economic value related to damages theories). A label about recently
23
produced testing data in no way discloses any kind of damages theory, much less one related to
24
NPV. Therefore, the Court finds that Judge Cousins committed no clear error in striking the NPV
25
damages theory.
26
Having found no clear error in Judge Cousins’ determination that VLSI did not properly
27
disclose the data and theory underlying Dr. Sullivan’s NPV theory in the FSDC, the Court
28
DENIES VLSI’s Motion for Relief as to the NPV theory.
7
1
2
IV.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff VLSI’s Motion for
3
Relief from Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins’ Nondispositive Pretrial Order (ECF No. 652)
4
is DENIED.
5
6
7
8
Dated: October 11, 2023
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?