Case 2:22-cv-05097-AB-SHK Document 80-6 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:2250
`Case 2:22-cv-05097-AB-SHK Document 80-6 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1of4 Page ID #:2250
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05097-AB-SHK Document 80-6 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2of4 Page ID #:2251
`
`Greg Proctor
`
`100 PineStreet
`
`Suite 3100
`San Francisco, CA 9411
`Direct Dial: 628.600.2228
`Fax: 628.221.5828
`gproctor@beneschlaw.com
`
`eneSC
`
`VIA EMAIL
`david@radip.com
`etai@radip.com
`bryon@radip.com
`
`Etai Lahav
`David C. Radulescu
`Bryon Wasserman
`Radulescu LLP
`5 Penn Plaza, 19th Fl
`New York, NY 10001
`
`April 28, 2023
`
`Re:
`
`SSC vy. Feit Electric (2:22-cv-05097-AB-SH) — Infringement Contentions and
`Document Production Deficiencies
`
`Dear Etai:
`
`Infringement Contentions (“Infringement
`I write regarding SSC’s April 20, 2023,
`Contentions”), which are deficient, and SSC’s delay in producing documents responsive to Feit
`Electric’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”).
`
`Deficient Infringement Contentions:
`
`Lack of Citations in Infringement Contentions. SSC’s Infringement Contentions are
`wholly deficient, contrary to law, because they do not include information sufficient to evaluate
`the proofs relied upon in the contentions. Infringement contentions must be specific enough to
`provide reasonable notice of infringement theories. Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple,
`Inc., 812 F.Supp.2d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citation omitted) (quoting View Eng'g, Inc.v.
`Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2000)) ("[A]ll courts agree that the degree
`of specificity under Local Rule 3-1 mustbe sufficient to provide reasonable notice to the defendant
`[as to] why the plaintiff believes it has a 'reasonable chance of proving infringement.'"). SSC’s
`contentions fail
`to meet this standard. SSC’s contentions inexplicably fail
`to include any
`identifying or source information regarding the products allegedly analyzed.
`Indeed,
`the
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05097-AB-SHK Document 80-6 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3o0f4 Page ID #:2252
`
`April 28, 2023
`Page 2
`
`Nor has SSC produced the images and documents that are purported to be reflected in the
`contentions. Moreover, the images appearto be highly technical microscope images embeddedin
`214 claim charts stemming from purported chip tear-downs having Transmission Electron
`Microscope (“TEM”) images, Scanning Electron Microscope (“SEM”) images, light spectrum
`graphs, and Optical Microscope (“OM”) images. Without imagesthat identify the accused product,
`the underlying images, source information, and citations to the source documents with
`identification of what componentis analyzed, Feit Electric cannot be placed on notice as required
`by law. SSC failure is particularly untenable as this information including the native versions of
`these images should have been producedin responseto Feit Electric’s RFP Nos. 12 and 13.
`
`Uncharted Accused Products. The Infringement Contentions allege that the 214 claim
`charts include only “representative” accused products and additionally lists hundreds of uncharted
`products that SSC calls “Additional Accused Instrumentalities.”
`SSC has made no effort,
`however, to demonstrate that the charted products are representative of the uncharted products,
`whichis required by law. Cap Co. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-CV-05068-JD, 2015 WL 4734951, at
`*2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015) (“representative products may only be charted when supported by
`adequate analysis showing that the accused products share the same critical characteristics”).
`Indeed, the Infringement Contentions do not attempt to explain which charted products are
`representative of which uncharted products, much less provide any analysis of representativeness
`outside of generic statements that the uncharted products have “the same or substantially similar
`components and/or structures” as the charted products.
`Instead, SSC appears to be accusing of
`infringement every LED product on the market, despite telling the court otherwise. See February
`14, 2023 Hearing Tr. at 24:10-13 (Court: “Mr. Lahav. You’re not accused every LD bulb out there
`that’s on the market of infringing your patents, right?” Mr. Lahav: “No, we’re not.”). Moreover,
`by failing to provide any identifying information or image source or analysis, this conclusory
`assertion is without merit. Accordingly, SSC is on notice that Feit Electric does not consider these
`products to be acciised.
`
`Please be prepared to discuss Feit Electric’s anticipated motionto strike the unchartedproducts
`during the parties’ scheduled May 3, 2023 meet and confer.
`
`Document Production Deficiencies:
`
`SSC has only made a single production to date, on March 27, 2023, consisting of 36
`documents.
`SSCclearly is not proceeding in discovery in good faith. Feit Electric RFP No. 12
`seeks “[n]ative versions of all images taken, used or provided in conjunction with Plaintiffs’
`infringementallegations and analyses, including but not limited to native versions of the images
`used in Plaintiffs’ complaint and infringement contentions.” SSC purports to use such images in
`its contentions, yet has not produced a single such image to date. Similarly, RFP No. 13 seeks
`“Tajll Documentsrelating to any analysis You have performed or caused to be performed on the
`Accused Products,
`including but not
`limited to Documents containing tear-downs, reverse
`engineering, images, Transmission Electron Microscope (“TEM”) images, and Scanning Electron
`Microscope (“SEM”) images.” SSC again claims to have undertaken such analysis but has
`provided no documents despite having a clear obligation to do so.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05097-AB-SHK Document 80-6 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4of4 Page ID #:2253
`
`April 28, 2023
`Page 3
`
`Moreover, the timely production of documents responsive to RFP No.4, “[alll validity and
`invalidity contentions and responses relating or referring to the Patents-in-Suit or the Related
`Patents,” is necessary for Feit Electric to developits invalidity contentions, which are due August
`7, 2023. SSC should have in its possession invalidity contentions for the Patents-in-Suit or
`Related Patents, including at least from the following cases which have overlapping patents: Seoul
`Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al v. Bed Bath and Beyond,Inc., Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al
`v. Satco Products, Inc., and Seoul Semiconductor, Co., Ltd. et al v. Service Lighting and Electrical
`Supplies, Inc. d/b/a 1000bulbs.com.
`
`Please be prepared to discuss these document production deficiencies during the parties’
`scheduled May 3, 2023 meet and confer.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER,
`COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
`
`“2
`
`LY
`
`,
`
`aS FROCTOL
`Greg Proctor
`
`GP:
`
`