1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Sean Pak (SBN 219032)
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6320
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`Thomas D. Pease (pro hac vice)
`(N.Y. Bar No. 2671741)
`thomaspease@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Taction Technology, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`TACTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant
`
` Case No. 21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB
`____________________
`
`PLAINTIFF TACTION
`TECHNOLOGY, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO APPLE INC.’S
`AMENDED MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
`DAUBERT MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF
`PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS JAMES
`H. OLIVER, PH.D. AND PATRICK
`F. KENNEDY, PH.D., AND
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16644 Page
`1 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` -i-
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. Introduction ................................ ................................ .......................... 1
`II. Dr. Oliver’s Infringement Opinions Should Not Be Stricken ....................... 3
`A. Apple Fails to Carry Its Burden Because It Assumes, Rather than
`Proves, the Central Question: Is Dr. Oliver Offering New
`Theories, or Instead Applying and Explaining Old Ones? .................. 3
`B. The Challenged Material Comprises Application and
`Explanation of Properly Disclosed Infringement Theories Under
`PLR 3.1(c) ................................ ................................ ................... 6
`C. Apple Cannot Legitimately Claim Surprise or Prejudice .................. 12
`III. Apple Has Not Met Its Burden to Obtain Summary Judgment of Non-
`Infringement ................................ ................................ ....................... 13
`A. A Reasonable Jury Could Find that the Accused Taptic Engines
`Are “Transducers With Highly Damped Output” ............................ 14
`1. O2 Micro Does Not Apply Here ................................ .......... 15
`2. Apple’s Interpretation of “Highly Damped Output” Is
`Incorrect and Directly Contrary to the Court’s Claim
`Construction Order ................................ ............................ 16
`(a) “Highly Damped Output” Does Not Need to Be
`Provided Exclusively by Ferrofluid ............................. 16
`(b) “Highly Damped Output” Does Not Require a
`Mechanical Q-Factor Less than 1.5 ............................. 19
`(c) “Highly Damped Output” Is an Output that Is
`Generally Uniform or Flat................................ .......... 20
`3. Taction’s Application of “Highly Damped Output” Does
`Not Render the Claims Invalid for Lack of Written
`Description ................................ ................................ ....... 24
`4. Taction’s Application of “Highly Damped Output” Does
`Not Render the Claims Invalid for Indefiniteness ................... 27
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16645 Page
`2 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` -ii-
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`B. A Reasonable Jury Could Find that the Monolithic Products
`Contain a “Plurality of Magnets” ................................ .................. 29
`IV. Apple Has Not Met Its Burden to Limit Damages on Summary
`Judgment ................................ ................................ ............................ 30
`A. A Reasonable Jury Could Find that Taction’s Combination of
`Marking of the Transporter and Packaging is Sufficient ................... 31
`B. A Reasonable Jury Could Find that Taction Consistently and
`Continuously Marked Its Products ................................ ................ 35
`V. Dr. Oliver and Dr. Kennedy’s Opinions Are Reliable ............................... 37
`A. Dr. Oliver’s Representative Testing for One Element Is Proper......... 37
`B. Dr. Oliver’s Q-Factor Testing Is Reliable................................ ....... 40
`C. Dr. Oliver’s Technical Apportionment Opinions Are Reliable .......... 41
`D. Dr. Kennedy Properly Relied on Dr. Oliver’s Opinion ..................... 43
`VI. Conclusion ................................ ................................ ......................... 45
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16646 Page
`3 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` -iii-
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................ ................................ ... 45
`ADC Telecomm., Inc. v. Siecor Corp.,
`954 F. Supp. 820 (D. Del. 1997)................................ ................................ .. 33
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Med. Eng’g Corp.,
`6 F.3d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................ ................................ ..35, 36
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`761 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................ ................................ ... 14
`Ameranth, Inc. v. GrubHub, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-739 JLS (NLS), 2013 WL 12071639 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ........ 4
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Papa John’s USA, Inc.,
`946 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (S.D. Cal. 2013) ................................ ........................... 1
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,
`143 S.Ct. 1243 (2023) ................................ ................................ ................ 26
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................ .......................... 44
`Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc.,
`25 F. 4th 960 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................ ................................ ..... 45
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045 (N.D. Cal. Jan 21, 2014) .......... 15, 19
`Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-00594-H-KSC, 2023 WL 2342037 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) ........... 11
`Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.,
`785 F. App’x 858 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................ ............................... 29
`Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc.,
`490 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D.R.I. 2007) ................................ ............................... 35
`Cellspin Soft., Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. et.al.,
`No. 4:17-CV-05928-YGR, 2022 WL 2784467 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2022) ........... 38
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16647 Page
`4 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` -iv-
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. Cerner Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-02479-GPC (DEB), 2022 WL 16985003 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15,
`2022) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15
`Comcast Cable Commcn’s, LLC v. OpenTV, Inc.,
`No. C 16-06180 WHA, 2017 WL 2630088 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2017) ................ 5
`DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011)................................ ........................... 44
`DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC,
`No. C 11-03792 PSG, 2012 WL 1309161 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012) .................. 4
`Denneroll Holdings Pty Ltd. v. Chirodesign Grp., LLC,
`No. 4:15-CV-740, 2016 WL 705207 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2016) ....................... 34
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-00072-BLF, 2020 WL 13180005 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) ........... 42
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ................................ ........................ 37
`Glob. Traffic Techs. LLC v. Morgan,
`620 F. App’x 895, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................ ................... 31, 34
`Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Comput. Grp., Inc.,
`362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................ ................................ ... 14
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................ ................................ ... 27
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................ ................................ ... 27
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................ ................................ ... 24
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................ ................................ ... 28
`Marketquest Grp., Inc. v. BIC Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-618-BAS (JLB), 2018 WL 1756117 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2018) ....... 44
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2020 WL 10458088 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020) ........ 5
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16648 Page
`5 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` -v-
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................ ................................ 30, 37
`MGM Well Servs., Inc. v. Mega Lift Sys., LLC,
`505 F. Supp. 2d 359 (S.D. Tex. 2007) ................................ .......................... 33
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,
`317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................ ................................ ... 44
`Mobile Tel. Techs., LLC v. BlackBerry Corp.,
`No. 3:12-CV-1652-M, 2016 WL 2907735 (N.D. Tex. May 17, 2016) ..... 3, 4, 5, 8
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ................................ ................................ .................. 28
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................ ................................ ... 15
`Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-01735-H-RBB, 2016 WL 7644790 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) ........ 44
`Pac. Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Techs., Inc.,
`No. CV 17-1353-LPS-CJB, 2020 WL 4699049 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2020)........... 29
`Pelican Int’l, Inc. v. Hobie Cat Co.,
`No. 3:20-cv-02390-RSH-MSB, 2023 WL 2127995 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10,
`2023) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..11, 45
`Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC v. VIZIO, Inc.,
`No. SACV181571JVSDFMX, 2020 WL 4258663 (C.D. Cal. May 14,
`2020) ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4
`Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................ ................................ ... 25
`Rhine v. Casio, Inc.,
`183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................ ..................... 26, 29
`Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`857 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................ ................................ ... 26
`SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,
`594 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................ ................................ ... 36
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16649 Page
`6 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` -vi-
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Sentry Prot. Prod., Inc. v. Eagle Mfg. Co.,
`400 F.3d 910 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................ ................................ ..... 36
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`No. LACV1704146JAKPLAX, 2019 WL 9047211 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18,
`2019) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 43
`Swain v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.,
`No. 12-2168, 2013 WL 12403557 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013) ............................. 45
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Proxim Inc.
`No. CIV.A.01-801-SLR, 2002 WL 1459476 (D. Del. June 25, 2002) ............... 34
`TiVo, Inc. v. Echostar Commc’ns. Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................ ................................ ... 38
`Toro Co. v. McCulloch Corp.,
`898 F. Supp. 679 (D. Minn. 1995) ................................ ............................... 33
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................ ................................ ... 26
`Trussell Mfg. Co. v. Wilson-Jones Co.,
`50 F.2d 1027, 1030 (2d Cir. 1931) ................................ ............................... 34
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`217CV00220MLHKSX, 2020 WL 2543814 at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10,
`2020) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 45
`ViaSat, Inc. v. Space Sys/Loral, Inc.,
`No. 3:12-CV-00260-H, 2013 WL 12061803 (S. D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) ............... 3
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................ ................................ ... 45
`Voda v. Cordis Corp.,
`536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................ ................................ ... 11
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................ ................................ ... 44
`Yeda Research and Dev. Co., v. Abbott GMBH,
`837 F.3d 1341, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................ ...................... 27
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16650 Page
`7 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` -vii-
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Zadro Prods., Inc. v. Feit Elec. Co.,
`514 F. Supp. 3d 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2021)................................ ......................... 35
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ................................ ................................ ........................ 2, 30
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ................................ ................................ ................... 31, 34
`35 U.S.C. § 292 ................................ ................................ ............................ 34
`Rules
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 ................................ ................................ .......................... 42
`N.D. Cal. PLR 3-1(c) ................................ ................................ ...................... 4
`Patent L.R. 3.1 ................................ ................................ ......................... 4, 10
`Patent L.R. 3.1(c) ................................ ................................ ....................... 4, 8
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16651 Page
`8 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` 1
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`I. Introduction
`Apple’s motions to strike, for summary judgment, and to exclude expert
`testimony (Dkt. 298, “Mot.”) should all be denied, and this case should go to trial.
`Taction has demonstrated infringement of valid patents and has met the evidentiary
`and procedural standards to have its day in court.
`Apple’s motion to strike is defective as a matter of law and should be denied.
`Apple assumes —without any supporting authority —that expert reports and
`infringement contentions must have a perfect one-to-one correspondence and that the
`contentions must set forth all facts and evidence of infringement. That is not the case,
`as infringement contentions are merely required to provide notice to the defendant
`that goes beyond the simple parroting of claim elements. Ameranth, Inc. v. Papa
`John’s USA, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1057-58 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (contentions “need
`not be so detailed as to transform the[m] into a forum for litigation of the substantive
`issues.”) (quotations omitted). Dr. Oliver’s report does not depart from Taction’s
`infringement contentions . His cited additional evidence and supporting detail
`developed through discovery is entirely proper under the Local Rules.
`Apple’s motion for summary judgment of non -infringement lacks merit and
`should be denied as numerous genuine issues of material fact exist and Apple is not
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law . Although Apple contends it uses a
`“fundamentally different approach to vibration control than that disclosed in the
`Taction patents,” no dispute exists that the majority of accused products literally meet
`each and every element of the asserted independent claims , including the use of
`ferrofluid to damp or reduce a resonance or Q-factor. Apple focuses on an allegedly
`“clear and unequivocal” disclaimer that Apple successfully persuaded the Court to
`adopt. But Apple’s positions on the application of that disclaimer strain credulity.
`The accused products, for example, are indisputably “transducers with highly
`damped output .” Apple now contends that this phrase is indefinite and requires
`further interpre tation to engraft the exact same restrictions the Court previously
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16652 Page
`9 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` 2
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`rejected, namely that the highly damped output results solely from ferrofluid-based
`damping, to produce a specific Q-factor. Apple argues that because the accused
`products use in conjunction with ferrofluid to further damp the
`output, the disclaimer is not met, despite there being no prohibition of other damping
`mechanisms in either the claim language itself or the disclaimer . Apple’s position
`amounts to a fabrication of numerous additional claim restrictions without
`justification. Apple’s new post-Markman interpretation of the disclaimer —that
`Apple itself argued was sufficiently clear and unmistakable—should not deprive the
`jury of its prerogative to decide whether the accused products infringe.
`Additionally, Apple wrongly attempts to prevent the jury from hearing
`evidence and analysis by Dr. Oliver showing how the monolithic magnets in a subset
`of the accused products meet the claimed “plurality of magnets” under the doctrine of
`equivalents. The monolithic magnets in these products indisputably contain plural
`magnetic regions that closely mimic the operation of the magnets in the non -
`monolithic products, and clearly meet the function-way-result test for infringement
`under the doctrine of equivalents. The Supreme Court continues to recognize the
`doctrine of equivalents in circumstances like these , and the jury should not be
`deprived of the opportunity to decide this infringement question.
`So, too, Apple’s fact -bound motion for summary judgment of no pre -suit
`damages, which faults Taction and Corsair for not marking the exterior housing of
`Corsair’s headphones, should fail. The jury has the right to conclude that this specific
`form of marking was not required, as the “patented article” is the Taction Transporter
`haptic transducers inside the headphones. It is undisputed that Taction marked both
`the Transporters themselves along with the packaging of the headphones. This was
`more than sufficient to allow a jury to decide whether this was sufficient to satisfy the
`marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`Finally, Apple’s Daubert motions to exclude the testimony of Dr. Oliver and
`Dr. Kennedy rest on cavils that are better presented via cross-examination.
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16653 Page
`10 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` 3
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`II. Dr. Oliver’s Infringement Opinions Should Not Be Stricken
`Apple asks the Court to strike two topics addressed by Taction’s expert, Dr.
`Oliver, because they supposedly constitute “new infringement theories” that violate
`the Patent Local Rules (“PLR”). Mot. at 6. However, Apple mischaracterizes as new
`“infringement theor ies” what are in fact proper application s and explanation s of
`previously-disclosed theories. Additionally, Apple had ample notice of the
`information it now claims to be “new” and has suffered no cognizable prejudice.
`A. Apple Fails to Carry Its Burden Because It Assumes, Rather than
`Proves, the Central Question: Is Dr. Oliver Offering New Theories,
`or Instead Applying and Explaining Old Ones?
`Apple’s request is fundamentally grounded on the assertion that Dr. Oliver is
`offering theories that are new. Mot. at 2-3. Left unmentioned is any explanation of
`what an infringement theory is and how it differs from the application or explanation
`of an infringement theory, which is standard content in any infringement expert
`report. See ViaSat, Inc. v. Space Sys/Loral, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00260-H, 2013 WL
`12061803, at *2 (S. D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) (“The infringement contention requirements
`are not the sa me as the information required in a party’s expert report.”); see also
`Mobile Tel. Techs., LLC v. BlackBerry Corp ., No. 3:12 -CV-1652-M, 2016 WL
`2907735 (N.D. Tex. May 17, 2016) (applying patent local rules that are identical, in
`relevant part, to the S.D. Cal. Patent Local Rules). Mobile Tel. offers a cogent analysis
`of the interplay between infringement contentions and expert reports. The question
`in Mobile Tel. was the same as the question here —“whether the expert has
`permissibly specified the application of a disclosed theory or impermissibl y
`substituted a new theory altogether.” Id. at *1.
`Answering this question requires an understanding of what an infringement
`theory is. The answer is that it is defined by the requirements for infringement
`contentions under the PLR. Id. (“Proper infringement contentions provide notice of
`the accusing party ’s specific theories of infringement .”). In other words, the
`infringement contentions specified by the PLR are the infringement theories. The
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16654 Page
`11 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` 4
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`pertinent local rule here is PLR 3.1(c) (along with subsection (e) for the doctrine of
`equivalents). PLR 3.1(c) simply requires a chart that identifies “specifically where
`each element of each asserted claim is found” within each accused instrumentality.
`This rule does not require: i) an explanation of how or why the identified location
`satisfies each claim element 1; ii) an identification of evidence that supports such a
`claim; or iii) how any claim terms should be construed or understood by a person of
`skill in the art. DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C 11-03792 PSG, 2012 WL
`1309161, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012) (“These rules do not, as is sometimes
`misunderstood, ‘require the disclosure of specific evidence nor do they require a
`plaintiff to prove its infringement case.’”) (citations omitted) ; Ameranth, Inc. v.
`GrubHub, Inc., No. 12-CV-739 JLS (NLS), 2013 WL 12071639, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar.
`26, 2013) (“[T]he law does not require the PICs contain a particular level of detail or
`be worded in a particular way.”). Such topics are instead the proper subject of expert
`reports. Mobile Tel., 2016 WL 290735, at *1. (“[E]xpert reports, on the other hand,
`must include a complete statement of the expert’s opinions, the basis and reasons for
`
`1 Apple’s only authority on the “inadequate disclosure” point, Polaris PowerLED
`Techs., LLC v. VIZIO, Inc., No. SACV181571JVSDFMX, 2020 WL 4258663 (C.D.
`Cal. May 14, 2020) , was decided under a different rule regarding infringement
`contentions. The Central District of California does not have local patent rules, but
`the court in Polaris adopted the patent rules of the Northern District of California for
`the case. Id. at *1. Importantly, the N.D. Cal. version of PLR 3.1 requires the patentee
`to provide a “chart identifying specifically where and how each limitation” is found.
`Id. at *2 (citing N.D. Cal. PLR 3 -1(c)) (emphasis added). Here, by contrast, the
`Southern District of California PLR only require the chart to identify where each
`limitation is found. Thus, the court’s analysis and conclusions are addressed to a
`different set of rules that require significantly more than is required here. As such,
`Apple’s authority is inapposite.
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16655 Page
`12 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` 5
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`those opinions, and any data or other information considered when forming the
`opinions.”); Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc. , No. 5:19 -CV-00036-RWS, 2020 WL
`10458088 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020), at *18 (“A degree of generality is permitted [in
`infringement contentions] because ‘[i]nfringement contentions are not intended to act
`as a forum for argument about the substantive issues but rather serve the purpose of
`providing notice to the Defendants of infringement theories beyond the mere language
`of the patent claim. ”); Comcast Cable Commcn’s, LLC v. OpenTV, Inc., No. C 16-
`06180 WHA, 2017 WL 2630088, at *2 -3 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2017) (Patent Local
`Rules do not require “evidence of infringement at the disclosure stage.”).
`In Mobile Tel. , the court evaluated several arguments from the defendant,
`BlackBerry, that the expert report applied different theories than those contained in
`the infringement contentions. In each case, the court refused to strike the reports,
`finding that the expert opinions merely provided evidence and explanation consistent
`with the general theories expressed in the infringement contentions.2
`Apple does not address the definition of an infringement theory, the PLR, or
`
`2 See 2016 WL 2907735, at *2 (even though c ontentions did not mention the
`“Native Attachment Download” feature addressed in the expert report, this did not
`“constitute new theories” and simply provided “evidence and explanation consistent
`with the general theory” expressed in the contentions); id. (finding that an opinion
`about how the accused system deals with errors simply specified “how the application
`of MTel’s theory applies in light of the Court ’s Final Claim Construction and the
`discovery MTel received”); id. at *3 (refusing to strike opinions directed to Mobile
`Datagram Protocol (MDP) and Relay Client Protocol (RCP) even though MTel did
`not “ dispute that its infringement contentions generally accuse BlackBerry ’s
`messaging infrastructure, without specifically identifying either MDP or RCP because
`this information was “ based on the discovery produced, [and] did not materially
`change the infringement theory”).
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16656 Page
`13 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` 6
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`even the basic premise that expert reports necessarily cover more than infringement
`contentions. Instead, Apple simply identifies verbiage or aspects of Dr. Oliver’s
`report (e.g., the explanation of how a person of ordinary skill would understand
`“highly damped output,” the use of particular charts or testing, etc.); declares by fiat
`those aspects to be “new infringement theories”; and then asserts—with scant citation
`to caselaw—that “new infringement theories” should be stricken. But Apple offers
`nothing more than its own say -so for the lynchpin of this argument: Are the things
`Apple attacks really infringement theories? They are not, and Apple’s failure to
`address this central issue dooms its motion.
`B. The Challenged Material Comprises Application and Explanation
`of Properly Disclosed Infringement Theories Under PLR 3.1(c)
`In reality, Dr. Oliver’s challenged opinions are consistent with Taction’s
`infringement contentions, and thus are not “new.” The challenged opinions are not
`“theories” of infringement, but rather explanation of how and why the theories
`identified in Taction’s contentions amount to infringement and a marshalling of
`evidence and explanation showing how and why that is the case.
`1. Highly damped output. Apple claims that Taction has switched from a
`theory in which ferrofluid causes the highly -damped output to a theory in which
`Apple’s is the causal mechanism. Mot. at 6-10. This argument
`fails for two reasons. First, the construed disclaimer requires no particular causal
`mechanism—it merely requires that the output of the transducer be highly damped.
`As such, there was no requirement that Taction’s contentions specify what factor or
`factors cause the highly damped output because that is not required by the construed
`claims. Thus Dr. Oliver’s discussion about how and why the Apple devices have a
`highly damped output is not and cannot be an “infringement theory.” Of course, it is
`appropriate for Dr. Oliver to address how and why the output of Apple’s accused
`devices is highly damped, but that is the ordinary province of expert reports. And the
`fact that Dr. Oliver discusses these items does not transform an explanation into an
`Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 323 Filed 06/16/23 PageID.16657 Page
`14 of 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
` 7
`TACTION’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S MSJ, DAUBERT MOTION, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`“infringement theory,” particularly when it is not even addressing a claim element.
`And even if the causal factors contributing to the highly damped output were
`required, Taction’s contentions specifically address the fact that the
` in the accused products and, in
`combination with ferrofluid (i.e., with the damping provided by ferrofluid that was
`shown in the frequency response graphs included in Taction’s infringement claim
`charts), contributes to a highly damped output.
`To the extent that the Court’s statement concerning “transducers with
`highly damped output” is ultimately imposed as a requirement of any
`asserted claim, Taction contends that the Taptic Engines in the accused
`products are “transducers with highly damped output.” Apple itself, for
`example, has stated that
`
`
`Apple’s First Supplemental Response to Taction’s Interrogatory No. 9 at
`20.3 So, too, the frequency response graphs included in Taction’s
`infringement claim charts,4 show that the Taptic Engines are transducers
`
`3 Apple appears to contend that this reference to the does
`not count because it cites to an Apple interrogatory response and because it does not
`state verbatim that “Apple’s produced ‘highly damped
`output.’” Mot. at 9. Apple provides no authority for this position because there is
`none. And in any event, the quoted portion of Taction’s contentions is clearly
`addressed to the “highly damped output disclaimer,” and it points to both the
` and the ferrofluid (through reference to Taction’s previously-disclosed
`frequency response graphs) as contributing to the highly damped output. The
`additional detail, explanation, and evidence in Dr. Oliver’s expert report is thus an
`appropriate applicati