Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc.
ORDER granting 579 Motion for Ruling on Deposition Designations. The objections are sustained in part and overruled in part. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 10/12/2015. (bgw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH
Before the court is plaintiff WARF’s motion for ruling on Apple’s objections to
WARF’s deposition designations for the damages phase of trial. (Dkt. #579.) After
reviewing Apple’s s opposition (dkt. #581), the court issues the following rulings:
Generic Scope Objections
Apple asserts a number of general scope objections to the reading or playing of
certain deposition testimony of Apple employees who testified on subjects falling outside
the scope of their Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)6 designation. WARF responds “that testimony
outside the scope of a Rule 30(b)(6) notice is admissible, although not binding on the
corporation,” which is true as far as it goes.
See Icon Enterprises Int’l, Inc. v. Am. Products
Co., No. CV 04-1240, 2004 WL5644805, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2004) (explaining rule
and stating the “Court will not exclude any testimony on the grounds that it went
beyond the designated topics.” (citing Detoy v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D.
362, 367 (N.D. Cal. 2000)).
Unless admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) as a statement of a party
opponent, however, as 30(b)6 representative statements are, the testimony is still
hearsay. This means that Apple’s objection is well taken unless the witness is unavailable
to testify at trial pursuant Fed. R. Evid. 804. While Apple’s witnesses are all outside the
court’s subpoena power, meaning that this test is normally met, Apple may voluntarily
produce the witness at trial. If so, then WARF must choose between calling that witness
adversely for all purposes, or forego introducing in its case in chief any testimony that
falls outside the subject matter for which that witness was designated.
Bannon’s testimony regarding the reasons why Apple did not use the load-store
dependency predictor of the A7 and A8 processors in the A6 processor, as well
as its important to the A7 and A8 processors (77): overruled. The court
agrees with WARF that this testimony concerns relevant considerations under
the Georgia-Pacific factors. While the testimony touches on technical aspects
of the accused products, the testimony primarily concerns the value of the LSD
predictor and, therefore, is not cumulative of that testimony presented during
the liability phase.
Bannon’s testimony regarding the “train wreck” email (90-92, 142-43, 307):
sustained in part, overruled in part. The court sustains Apple’s objection to
these passages as cumulative to the extent this testimony was already played to
the jury, but not for passages that have not yet been played.
Bannon’s testimony regarding PA Semiconductor (159-61): sustained for lack
of foundation and speculation.
Bannon’s testimony regarding post-litigation actions to disable accused feature
(173, 271-72): overruled. Bannon’s testimony is relevant to the jury’s
determination of whether Apple has a non-infringing alternative.
Bannon’s testimony regarding changing control bits (271-72): overruled.
This testimony is also relevant to the availability (or lack thereof) of a noninfringing alternative.
Meier’s testimony regarding an email discussing simulations that were run to
assess the performance of Apple’s processors (154-56): overruled. Meier’s
testimony concerns testing of performance of a processor that does not allow
“loads to speculate around stores.” (Meier Dep. (dkt. #137) 156.) This
testimony is arguably relevant to the question of non-infringing alternatives
and the value of the infringing element of Apple’s accused products as
determined by the jury.
Meier’s testimony regarding simulations on an early version of Cyclone (23839): overruled. Meier testified that the simulation was done on a product
what was “very close to the final load-store data dependency predictor,” and
therefore, the testimony is relevant to whether Apple has non-infringing
alternatives and the value of the alleged infringing element of Apple’s accused
Apple’s general objection is beside the point. The court agrees that the
admissibility of Risher’s testimony is not determined by Donaldson’s reliance
on it. Donaldson, of course, is free to rely on Risher’s testimony to the extent
that experts in his field would reasonably rely on this information.
Risher’s testimony that he has been deposed 10-20 times (7): overruled. The
number of times a witness has been deposed is arguably relevant to the jury’s
assessment of his credibility.
Risher’s testimony about the Apple/ARM license agreements (156, 202-03):
overruled in part and denied in part. The objection is overruled as to
156:4-10, but sustained as to 156:11-21 for lack of foundation. As for 202-30,
overruled to the extent that the remainder of the witness’s explanation on
pages 203-05 is designated.
Bauer’s testimony regarding what another WARF employee Paul Pucci did to
contact Apple (15, 139, 140-42, 144-45, 153-54): sustained for lack of
relevance since WARF is not claiming that it provided direct notice of the
patent in challenging Apple’s forfeiture of pre-suit damages claim.
Papworth’s testimony regarding who generated the Intel spreadsheets (40-42):
overruled. The court previously allowed Papworth’s testimony and certain
deposition exhibits to be introduced into evidence, making Papworth’s process
of obtaining the spreadsheets describing Intel’s sales relevant and not unduly
Papworth’s testimony regarding a letter from Intel stating that it will not use
the ’752 intention in any new Intel product platform (98-99): overruled.
This testimony is relevant to whether WARF has waived its right to pre-suit
damages by failing to mark Intel’s licensed products.
Papworth’s testimony regarding whether Intel processors are “covered by any
claims of WARF’s ’752 patent” (132-33): sustained. The testimony concerns
a legal question for which Papworth is not qualified to testify.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that WARF’s motion for ruling on Apple’s
objections to WARF’s deposition designations for the damages phase of trial (dkt. #579)
is GRANTED, and the objections are sustained in part and overruled in part as provided
Entered this 12th day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
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?