WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 460

RESPONSE in Opposition re 455 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Defendants' Equitable and Other Defenses DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON DEFENDANTS' EQUITABLE AND OTHER DEFENSES filed by Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Deoras, Akshay)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

WI-LAN, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., et al.
Defendants.
______________________________________

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-521-LED
Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-252-LED
CONSOLIDATED CASES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON
DEFENDANTS’ EQUITABLE AND OTHER DEFENSES
Throughout this case, from the filing of the Complaint until the eve of trial, Wi-LAN
asserted that it was entitled to recover damages from the time of first alleged infringement (June
2005 for Alcatel-Lucent and March 2008 for HTC).

Defendants Alcatel-Lucent and HTC

asserted the defense of laches in response to Wi-LAN’s claims. Although Alcatel-Lucent and
HTC openly marketed HSDPA-compliant products for years before this suit was filed, Wi-LAN
unreasonably delayed until October 2010 to bring suit. As a result of Wi-LAN’s delay, AlcatelLucent and HTC suffered both economic and evidentiary prejudice. Laches therefore barred WiLAN’s right to recover pre-suit damages. A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960
F.2d 1020, 1040–41 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc).
On July 7th at 5:36 PM, counsel for Wi-LAN informed Defendants that Wi-LAN was
dropping its claims for pre-suit damages. (Ex. A, 7/7/2013 Email from A. Pai to Defendants.)
This email, coming just one day before opening statements, confirmed Alcatel-Lucent’s and
HTC’s position that Wi-LAN was not entitled to collect damages from prior to when Wi-LAN

1

filed suit. Given that Wi-LAN dropped it claims for pre-suit damages and has acquiesced to the
relief Defendants requested in its laches defense, this Court should deny Wi-LAN’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law on Defendants’ equitable and other defenses (D.I. 455) as moot.
Wi-LAN admits that it is not entitled to damages from prior to the date of the Complaint. (D.I.
455 at 3.) Defendants’ equitable and other defenses are therefore moot in light of Wi-LAN
dropping its claims for pre-suit damages.1

Dated: July 14, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
By:

/s/ Akshay S. Deoras____________

Gregory S. Arovas (pro hac vice)
Robert A. Appleby (pro hac vice)
Jeanne M. Heffernan (pro hac vice)
Akshay S. Deoras (pro hac vice)
Ryan P. Kane (pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Michael E. Jones (TX Bar 10929400)
Allen F. Gardner (TX Bar 24043679)
POTTER MINTON PC
110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702)
P.O. Box 359
Tyler, Texas 75710
[phone]
[phone] (Facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
1

Although Wi-LAN addresses equitable estoppel, acquiescence, and ratification in its motion, as
Wi-LAN notes Defendants did not pursue these defenses in the pre-trial order. (D.I. 311.) Thus,
this portion of Wi-LAN’s motion is also moot.

2

Attorneys for Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
/s/ Eric H. Findlay
Stephen S. Korniczky (pro hac vice)
Martin R. Bader (pro hac vice)
Daniel N. Yannuzzi (pro hac vice)
Lee Hsu (pro hac vice)
Graham M. Buccigross (pro hac vice)
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Eric H. Findlay (TX Bar No. 00789886)
Brian Craft (TX Bar No. 04972020)
FINDLAY CRAFT
6760 Old Jacksonville Hwy, Suite 101
Tyler, TX 75703
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corporation, HTC
America, Inc., and Exedea Inc.

/s/ Richard L. Wynne, Jr. (with permission)
Bruce S. Sostek (TX Bar 18855700)
Richard L. Wynne, Jr. (TX Bar 24003214)
Adrienne E. Dominguez (TX Bar 00793630)
J. Michael Heinlen (TX Bar 24032287)
Timothy E. Hudson (TX Bar 24046120)
Justin S. Cohen (TX Bar 24078356)
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
1722 Routh Street
Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201-2533
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

3

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
William J. Cornelius (TX Bar 04834700)
Jennifer Ainsworth (TX Bar 00784720)
WILSON ROBERTSON & CORNELIUS PC
909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400
P.O. Box 7339
Tyler, TX 75711-7339
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Ericsson Inc.,
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Mobile
Communications (USA) Inc., and Sony Mobile
Communications AB

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance
with Local Rule CV-5(a) on this 14th day of July, 2013. As such, this document was served on all
counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service.

/s/ Akshay S. Deoras______ ____________
Akshay S. Deoras

5