Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Corporation et al

Filing 470

MEMORANDUM ORDER re schedule for further briefing on the pending motions. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 1/2/19. Associated Cases: 1:15-cv-00379-LPS, 1:15-cv-00788-LPS (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WI-LAN INC.,
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. 15-379-LPS

V.

SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
WI-LAN INC. ,
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. 15-788-LPS

V.

VIZIO, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 2nd day of January, 2019:
Pending before the Court are PlaintiffWi-LAN Inc.' s ("Plaintiff') Motions for Summary
Judgment oflnfringement (C.A. No. 15-379 D.I. 406; C.A. No. 15-788 D.I. 334), Defendants
Sharp Electronics Corporation and Vizio, Inc. ' s (collectively, "Defendants") Motions to Preclude
the Expert Opinions of Craig K. Tanner (C.A. No. 15-379 D.I. 408 ; C.A. No. 15-788 D.I. 329),
Defendants' Motions to Preclude the Analysis of Rebecca Reed-Arthurs (C.A. No. 15-379 D.I.
410; C.A. No. 15-788 D.I. 330), Defendants' Motions to Preclude the Expert Opinions oflonut
Mirel (C.A. No. 15-379 D.I. 411 ; C.A. No. 15-788 D.I. 331), Defendants' Motions to Preclude
'

the Expert Opinions of David A. Kennedy (C.A. No. 15-379 D.I. 412; C.A. No. 15-788 D.I. 332),

Plaintiffs Motions for Partial Swnmary Judgment of No Invalidity (C.A. No. 15-379 D.I. 414;
C.A. No. 15-788 D.I. 339), Defendants' Motions for Swnmary Judgment ofNon-Infringement
(C.A. No. 15-379 D.I. 416; C.A. No. 15-788 D.I. 337), and Plaintiffs Motions to Preclude the
Infringement and Validity Expert Reports of Clifford Reader (C.A. No. 15-379 D.I. 419; C.A.
No. 15-788 D.I. 344). The Court heard arguments on these motions on December 19, 2018 and
took all motions under advisement.
1.

Having considered the parties' briefs and arguments, the Court finds that it will

benefit from additional briefing addressing the following questions:
a.

Are either of the two sets of SoC declarations admissible as authenticating
source code evidence under Rule 901(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, and are either of the two sets of SoC declarations and the source
code itself (produced by the SoC manufacturers) admissible under the
Rule 803(6) hearsay exception?

b.

If the Court grants swnmary judgment of infringement, should the Court

also decide the remaining motions; alternatively, if the Court grants
swnmary judgment of non-infringement, should the Court also decide the
remaining motions?
c.

What is the evidentiary basis, if any, by which a reasonable factfinder
could find that the Defendants directly infringe the asserted patent through
testing?

d.

If Plaintiffs SiRF1 theory of direct infringement fails, who is the direct

1

SiRFTech. , Inc. v. Int '! Trade Comm 'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
2

infringer and, if it is no one, is that a problem?
2.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on January 10, 2019, the parties shall file

simultaneous briefs, not to exceed ten (10) pages each, addressing the questions listed above.
Simultaneous responsive briefs, not to exceed five (5) pages each, shall be filed on January 15,

2019.

HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3