Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. NVIDIA Corporation et al

Filing 735

MEMORANDUM OPINION - This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANTS' MOTION TOSUPPLEMENT DEFENDANTS' WITNESS LIST 677 . For theforegoing reasons, the motion has been denied (see ORDER, 692 ). SEE OPINION FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 01/27/2016. (tjoh, )

JAN 28 2016
IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

CLL'^ '

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No.

3:14cv757

NVIDIA CORPORATION,

et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

matter

SUPPLEMENT

before

DEFENDANTS'

foregoing reasons,
No.

is

the

WITNESS

Court

LIST

on

DEFENDANTS'

(Docket

the motion has been denied

No.

MOTION

677).

For

TO

the

(see ORDER, Docket

692).

BACKGROUND

An

important

issue

in this

case

is whether the defendant,

NVIDIA Corporation ("NVIDIA")^ is liable for pre-suit damages if
it

is

found

patents.
NVIDIA

A

to

key

have

component

controlled

Manufacturing Co.

No.

602)

its

2015,

that,

^ The other defendants.
LLC,

of

the

that

6,287,902

and

determination

supplier,

Taiwan

8,252,675

is

whether

Semiconductor

('^TSMC") .

On December 16,

(Docket

infringed

the Court issued a

inter

alia,

Old Micro,

outlined

Inc.

Memorandum Opinion

the

kind

of

proof

and Velocity Holdings,

have been dismissed upon agreement of the parties.

that

could

be

manufacturer

used

of

patents-in-suit
2015,
the

Samsung

a

in

to

product

this

Electronics

Pretrial

Order

discovery

provided

by

Interrogatory

granted by Order
("January

15

10

that

Co.,
to

(Docket

entered on
That

NVIDIA

alleged

(''Samsung")
its

two

December

on

the

infringe

to

Thereafter,
Ltd.

controls

29,

moved

was

to

to

add

NVIDIA's

No.

610).

January
Order

also

be

used

2016

of

the

trial.

response

to

motion

was

(Docket

contained

amend

at

Samsung's

15,

to

designations

that

wanted

Order).

is

supplement

NVIDIA

Samsung
No.

whether

action.

Final

Specifically,

show

the

No.

659)

following

provisions:
If the Defendants perceive that the granting
of this motion and the adding of the Answer
[to Interrogatory No.
10]
to the matters
that

will

be

received

in

evidence

necessitate, on their part, the addition of
other designations or of other evidence, it
is further ORDERED that:
(i) they shall ...
file
a
motion
to
that
effect,
therein
identifying
specifically
the
proposed
additional
evidence
or
designation,
and
shall file a supporting brief explaining the
need for the addition sought in the motion.

A

briefing

scheduled

additional designations.

was

established

for

submission

of

Oral argument was heard on January 19,

2016.

In response to that authorization in the January 15 Order,
NVIDIA

filed

President

of

a

motion

Operations,

seeking
Debora

to

add

Shoquist,

its
as

Executive
a

witness

Vice
to

testify about the statements that were made in NVIDIA's response
to Interrogatory No.

10 and the context for the response.

DISCUSSION

Samsung
Inds.,

P.

Inc.,

16(e)

prevent

203

injustice.

witness.

1222

of

the

Both

Those

factors

test

(lOth Cir.

Final

and

that

parties

appropriate
Final

the

a

injustice,

motion to amend the

a

under

amendment

manifest

provides

that,

F.2d 1202,

permits

manifest

Koch

contends

in

2000),

Pretrial

NVIDIA

agree

measure

Koch

that

for

Fed.

Order

has
the

'Ml)

prejudice

the party opposing trial of the issue;
party to cure any prejudice;

(3)

(2)

or

Koch

R.

Civ.

only

not

v.

Shoquist as

surprise

case,

Indus.,

the

Inc.,

proposed

203

F.2d

amendment

not involve the addition of a
of

a

new

witness

to

address

to

disruption to the orderly and

at

the

1222.

Of

Final

new issue,
an

to

the ability of that

bad faith by the party seeking to modify the order."
Koch

in

NVIDIA's

efficient trial of the case by inclusion of the new issue;

(4)

to

shown

decision

assessing

Pretrial Order to add Ms.

are:

v.

course,

Pretrial

in

and

Koch
this

Order does

but rather the addition

existing

issue.

Nonetheless,

both parties agree that the Koch analysis applies here.
1.

Whether There Is Surprise Or Prejudice

The

record

addition of Ms.

is

clear

that

Shoquist as a

Samsung

was

surprised

by

the

potential witness because she had

never

been

disclosed,

under

Fed.

R.

knowledgeable person on any issue.

Civ.

P.

26(a),

NVIDIA provided its

as

a

initial

disclosures under Rule 26(a)

and provided three updates thereto,

and Ms.

not

Shoquist's

To the contrary,
who

were

name

did

the persons

identified

to

appear

Fed.

R.

when

testify

Civ.

NVIDIA

was

P.

30(b) (6),

between

relationship

NVIDIA

about

the

called
a

and

and agreements with that company.

person to testify,

not Ms.

any

of

the

updates.

identified in the updated response

TSMC and NVIDIA was John Montrym and Dr.

Further,

on

relationship

between

James Chen.

upon

witness

TSMC,

to

designate,

to

testify

including

the

under

on

the

contracts

Dr. Chen was designated as the

Shoquist.

Finally, at oral argument,

NVIDIA's counsel acknowledged that there are four witnesses who

are

to

testify

tendered.

On

about
this

the

topic

record,

for

it

which

is

Mr.

clear

Shoquist

that

is

Samsung

now
was

surprised by the naming of Ms. Shoquist.
Also,
addition

disclosed

it

of

appears

that

Samsung

testimony

from

a

as

pertinent

to

will

witness

the

be

whose

issue

of

prejudiced

by

identity was

whether

the

never

NVIDIA

has

control over TSMC sufficient to call into play the obligation of

NVIDIA for pre-suit damages.

See U.S.C.

§§ 287(b).

Having taken

depositions of the Rule 30(b)(6)

deponents and the other people

who have

Samsung has prepared its case,

and

knowledge of the topic,

granting

this

motion

would

require

Samsung

to

take

depositions
January 21,

on

eve

of

trial

(jury

selection

is

to

occur

2016 and the trial is to start on January 25,

on

2016).

The tendering of a never-before identified witness on this topic
prejudices Samsung.
2.

Whether The Prejudice Can Be Cured

At

this

stage

of

the

proceedings,

perceive how the prejudice of having a
witness brought to the
Court

could

allow

fore

it

of

difficult

to

previously unidentified

can be cured.

deposition

is

that

It

is true that the

person

and

that

that

process would provide some ability to cross-examine the witness.
However,

because discovery is closed,

Samsung would not be able

to pursue additional paths of discovery that her testimony might
reveal.

Nor

would

the

proximity

of

trial

allow

for

such

a

course.

3.

Whether

The

Amendment

Would

Disrupt

An

Orderly

And

Efficient Trial

The

keystone

preparation

for

of

this

an

efficient

trial

has

been

Commencement of the trial is only a

disrupt

the

orderly

and

trial

efficient

is

preparation

underway

for

some

and

time.

few days away and it would

conduct

of

the

trial

to

require adjustment of the trial preparations to accommodate the
testimony of this new witness on this topic.

4.

Whether NVIDIA Acted In Bad Faith

Samsung contends that NVIDIA has acted in bad faith because
it

is

identifying

effective
make

as

she

such a

a

witness

is

in

to

replace

providing

conclusion.

The

others

testimony.

record

who

may

not

The
that,

reflects

Court
in

be

cannot

response

to the provision in the Order granting NVIDIA the opportunity to
add

a

previously

assessed

whether

case

good

in

sworn-to

it

needed

faith

to

interrogatory
another

the

response,

witness

Court.

and

This

NVIDIA

presented

factor

its

therefore

certainly does not cut against NVIDIA in the Koch analysis.
Although

not

one

of

the

Koch

factors

that

are

considered

when assessing whether not allowing the witness to be added will
work

a

manifest

injustice,

it

seems

necessary

to

assess

impact on NVIDIA of a decision denying its motion.
shows

that

denial

of

the

motion

will

not

the

The record

adversely

affect

NVIDIA.

NVIDIA acknowledges

(and

definitely

two)

issue of control as

suit

damages

that

whom
it

issue.

there

are

will

call

it

perhaps

to

four

testify

nothing

previously

that

was

about

the

is presented in the context

of the pre-

And,

the

at

oral

argument

on

counsel for NVIDIA candidly acknowledged that Ms.

say

witnesses

not

to

identified witnesses.

be

presented

Under

the

motion,

Shoquist would

by

these

other

circumstances,

the

Court

cannot

conclude

that

denial

of

the

motion

will

prejudice

NVIDIA.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,
that

amendment

prevent

manifest

DEFENDANTS'
It

of

is

the

Final

injustice,

WITNESS LIST

and because NVIDIA has not shown
Pretrial

DEFENDANTS'

{Docket No.

677}

Order

is

MOTION

necessary

TO

SUPPLEMENT

has been denied.

so ORDERED.

/s/

/2^

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date:
January 27, 2016

to