`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: 18-cv-966-CFC-CJB
`
`
`
`VLSI'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
`INTEL'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`FROM MARK CHANDLER (D.I. 796)
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 15, 2022
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone : (302) 777-0300
`Fax : (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Morgan Chu (admitted pro hac vice)
`Benjamin Hattenbach (admitted pro hac vice)
`Iian D. Jablon (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ian Washburn (admitted pro hac vice)
`Christopher Abernethy (admitted pro hac vice)
`Amy E. Proctor (admitted pro hac vice)
`Dominik Slusarczyk (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 36526
`
`
`
`S. Adina Stohl (admitted pro hac vice)
`Charlotte J. Wen (admitted pro hac vice)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`mchu@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`ijablon@irell.com
`iwashburn@irell.com
`cabernethy@irell.com
`aproctor@irell.com
`dslusarczyk@irell.com
`astohl@irell.com
`cwen@irell.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 36527
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................. 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................... 2
`III.
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 3
`A. Mr. Chandler's Analysis Of Intel's Settlement Agreements Is
`Admissible .......................................................................................... 3
`B. Mr. Chandler Properly Relies On Other Third Party
`Agreements To Rebut Mr. Huston's Opinions On The Form
`Of Royalty And Industry Practices .................................................... 8
`Intel Mischaracterizes Mr. Chandler's Opinions On Patent
`Holdout ............................................................................................. 10
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 11
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`
`11068135
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 36528
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J. dissenting) ....................................... 11
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-cv-00630, 2014 WL 794328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) ........................... 9
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 4
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 19-cv-00070, 2020 WL 4288345 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2020) ......................... 9
`Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-02848-WHO, 2021 WL 1222622 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11,
`2021) ............................................................................................................. 4, 5, 6
`Intelligent Verification Sys., LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-00525, 2015 WL 1518099 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015) ......................... 6
`Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 5, 6
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 6
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Enfora, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 665 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................... 6
`MLC Intell. Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 7
`In re MSTG, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 4
`Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-01735, 2016 WL 7644790 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) ........................ 9
`
`11068135
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 36529
`
`Page(s)
`
`Omega Patents, LLC. v. CalAmp Corp.,
`13 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 7
`Personal Audio LLC v. Google LLC,
`1-17-cv-01751 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2022) ................................................................... 7
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 6
`RMail Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-00258-JRG, 2019 WL 10375642 (E.D. Tex. June 12,
`2019) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-447, 2014 WL 7336213 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2014) ...................... 9, 10
`Smith v. BMW North Am., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 7
`Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.,
`No. 17-1734-RGA, 2021 WL 982732 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2021) ........................... 7
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 21-cv-00057-ADA (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2021), D.I. 638 ....................... 4, 5, 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 284 .................................................................................................... 2, 11
`
`
`
`*Unless otherwise noted, internal citations and quotation marks and subsequent
`history are omitted, and emphasis is added.
`
`11068135
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 36530
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`As Intel admits, VLSI's licensing expert, Mark Chandler, "does not calculate
`
`a damages number." D.I. 797 ("Mot.") at 1. Instead, Mr. Chandler draws on decades
`
`of licensing experience to rebut the opinions of Intel's damages expert, Hance
`
`Huston, who presents a comparable license analysis. Mr. Huston bases his opinions
`
`in significant part on twenty patent agreements that Intel entered into with third
`
`parties, and claims that those agreements are consistent with an alleged Intel and
`
`industry "practice" of only entering into low value, lump-sum agreements. But that
`
`self-serving claim is flawed in many respects, including because Mr. Huston applies
`
`his comparability framework
`
`inconsistently
`
`to cherry-pick
`
`low
`
`lump-sum
`
`agreements. See D.I. 821 (VLSI's Daubert) at 16-19. Mr. Chandler rebuts that claim,
`
`including by identifying agreements that contradict or otherwise challenge Mr.
`
`Huston's conclusions. Intel's attempt to preclude Mr. Chandler from presenting
`
`proper and admissible rebuttal opinions should be rejected.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`Intel's motion relies on a faulty premise: that experts presenting purely rebuttal
`
`opinions and offering no affirmative damages number can opine on license
`
`agreements only if they perform a full comparability analysis. That is not the law.
`
`Intel has two primary arguments—that Mr. Chandler (1) "admits" that his
`
`various agreements are not comparable to the hypothetical licenses; and (2) fails to
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 36531
`
`
`apportion by not accounting for differences between his agreements and the
`
`hypothetical licenses. Mot. at 2. However, because Mr. Chandler is not offering his
`
`agreements to support a damages number, but to critique and rebut Mr. Huston's
`
`erroneous analysis, Intel's arguments are irrelevant. Intel similarly presents no viable
`
`basis for excluding Mr. Chandler's holdout opinions. Ultimately, Intel's
`
`disagreements with those opinions are matters for cross-examination, not exclusion.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`VLSI offers its affirmative damages case through its main damages expert,
`
`Dr. Ryan Sullivan, whose opinion is based on "the use made of the invention by
`
`[Intel]," 35 U.S.C. § 284, and in particular, on the economic value of Intel's use of
`
`VLSI's patented technology in its accused products. See VLSI's concurrently-filed
`
`opposition to Intel's Sullivan Daubert.
`
`In contrast, Mr. Huston's opinion is wholly divorced from the value of Intel's
`
`use of VLSI's patented technology. For example, Mr. Huston's analysis hinges on
`
`incomplete facts, coupled with broad, generic, and self-contradictory views on
`
`technological and economic comparability. See Ex. R-1 ¶¶ 148-150; Ex. R-2 ¶¶ 88-
`
`318; D.I. 821 at 16-19. There is no evidence Intel ever used the technology claimed
`
`in any of Mr. Huston's licensed or purchased patents. Ex. R-1 ¶¶ 173-184.
`
`
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 36532
`
`
`. Id.; Ex. R-3 at 90:10-91:7, 96:21-97:20.
`
`
`
`. Id. at 91:14-93:2; 113:23-114:24.
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Huston relies on Intel deposition testimony, certain Intel agreements, and
`
`sweeping generalizations about the semiconductor industry to opine that the parties
`
`would have negotiated a hypothetical license to the patents-in-suit for a low, lump-
`
`sum amount. Ex. R-4 ¶¶ 3-7. Mr. Chandler counters this biased account (disclosed
`
`in Intel's interrogatory responses) by identifying: (1) settlement agreements Intel has
`
`entered into for orders of magnitude more than Mr. Huston's Intel agreements; (2)
`
`Intel licenses that include running royalty terms; and (3) third-party license
`
`agreements and surveys that demonstrate actual industry practice. Ex. R-1 ¶¶ 139-
`
`142, 148-151, 198-214.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. Mr. Chandler's Analysis Of Intel's Settlement Agreements Is
`Admissible
`Mr. Chandler opines on seven Intel settlement agreements, all of which are
`
`more valuable than Mr. Huston's twenty agreements and the amount
`
`
`
`151. Mr. Chandler does not use these agreements to support an affirmative damages
`
`opinion, or to advocate for higher damages. Rather, Mr. Chandler opines that Mr.
`
`Huston's analysis is improper, that none of his agreements are comparable to the
`
` Id.¶¶ 148-
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 36533
`
`
`hypothetical licenses when a principled analysis of comparability is applied, and that
`
`the settlement agreements are just one concrete example of the unreliability of Mr.
`
`Huston's comparability framework. Id. ¶¶ 148-150; Ex. R-2 ¶¶ 88-318.
`
`Intel's statement that "the law requires excluding evidence about [Intel's]
`
`settlements" is simply wrong. See Mot. at 5. The Federal Circuit has "explained that
`
`prior settlements can be relevant to determining damages." Elbit Sys. Land & C4I
`
`Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 927 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also
`
`In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Our cases appropriately
`
`recognize that settlement agreements can be pertinent to the issue of reasonable
`
`royalties."). Indeed, courts routinely approve introduction of non-comparable
`
`agreements for purposes other than to support affirmative damages numbers. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. R-5 at 3, VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 21-cv-00057-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`
`Aug. 9, 2021), D.I. 638; Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., No. 18-cv-02848-
`
`WHO, 2021 WL 1222622, at *33 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2021); RMail Ltd. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 10-cv-00258-JRG, 2019 WL 10375642, at *5 (E.D. Tex.
`
`June 12, 2019) (excluding non-comparable licenses only in "the factor 2 context,"
`
`and expressly stating that the order "does not address [the party's] reliance on those
`
`four licenses in any other context").
`
`Two particularly instructive cases discuss the exact asymmetries present here,
`
`between Intel's licensing "practices" and opinions like Mr. Huston's. In VLSI,
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 36534
`
`
`involving both Mr. Huston and Mr. Chandler, the court determined that "the
`
`settlement evidence [Mr. Chandler offered] was admitted as proper rebuttal." Ex. R-
`
`5 at 2. Mr. Huston "offered evidence of licensing agreements that Intel believed were
`
`comparable to the facts of the situation. In rebuttal, VLSI offered the settlement
`
`agreement testimony to explain alleged discrepancies between Intel's claimed
`
`licensing practices and other Intel licenses that were markedly higher than Intel's
`
`expert divulged." Id. at 3. The court allowed the settlement agreements over
`
`objections by Intel that mirror those made here, including that VLSI used the
`
`agreements "to place large numbers in front of the jury." Id. at 2. The court concluded
`
`that Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(cited by Intel in both cases) "stands for the proposition that non-comparable
`
`settlement agreements cannot support an opinion regarding a specific dollar amount
`
`of damages a party is entitled to. This rule, however, does not extend to the
`
`prohibition of non-comparable agreements from lending further context to a party's
`
`IP licensing practice." Ex. R-5 at 3.
`
`In Tela, Intel—employing a similar methodology as Mr. Huston's here—
`
`argued that an opposing expert "improperly relie[d] on several previous licenses
`
`involving Intel with large lump sum payments up to $1.5 billion that are non-
`
`comparable to this case." 2021 WL 1222622 at *33. The court disagreed, finding
`
`that the expert "uses these figures to shed light on Intel's general licensing practices,
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 36535
`
`
`including its purported willingness to make significant lump sum payments where it
`
`recognizes infringement risks." Id. The court distinguished Intel's caselaw—which
`
`Intel also cites here—because in those cases, "the non-comparable agreements were
`
`proffered as the evidence to support the award." Id. Not so here. In this case, as in
`
`VLSI and Tela, Mr. Huston cherry-picks evidence to claim that Intel only enters into
`
`low-value, lump-sum patent agreements. But that is not true—and the settlement
`
`agreements demonstrate that Mr. Huston presents a biased, incomplete assessment
`
`of record facts. Mr. Chandler does not have to present an affirmative comparability
`
`analysis to offer such rebuttal.
`
`Intel's cited cases only stand for the irrelevant proposition that non-
`
`comparable agreements may not be offered to support an affirmative damages
`
`number. See, e.g., Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1325 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (Georgia-Pacific "factor [2] examines whether the licenses relied on by
`
`the patentee in proving damages are sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical
`
`license at issue in suit."); Laser Dynamics, Inc., 694 F.3d at 80-81 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 870-73 (Fed. Cir. 2010); M2M Sols.
`
`LLC v. Enfora, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 665, 675-79 (D. Del. 2016); Intelligent
`
`Verification Sys., LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-cv-00525, 2015 WL 1518099, at
`
`*2, 5 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015). None of these cases excluded testimony from a
`
`rebuttal expert like Mr. Chandler.
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 36536
`
`
`Intel also complains that Mr. Chandler "fail[s] to perform the required
`
`apportionment analysis." Mot. at 6-7. But again, because Mr. Chandler is not opining
`
`on a damages amount, this argument does not justify exclusion. See MLC Intell.
`
`Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 10 F.4th 1358, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (discussing
`
`apportionment in the context of an affirmative damages number); Omega Patents,
`
`LLC. v. CalAmp Corp., 13 F.4th 1361, 1367-77 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (same); Personal
`
`Audio LLC v. Google LLC, 1-17-cv-01751 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2022), D.I. 707 (same).
`
`Further, Intel argues that Mr. Chandler's testimony should be excluded
`
`because he did not account for various "differences" for each of the settlement
`
`agreements. See Mot. at 6-7. But those arguments only highlight a disagreement
`
`between Mr. Huston and Mr. Chandler regarding the comparability of the settlement
`
`agreements under Mr. Huston's framework. Disagreements do not warrant
`
`exclusion. See, e.g., Smith v. BMW North Am., Inc., 308 F.3d 913, 921 n.11 (8th Cir.
`
`2002) ("Experts frequently disagree and their opinions, if reliable, are for a jury's
`
`consideration."); Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., No. 17-1734-
`
`RGA, 2021 WL 982732, at *14 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2021) ("disagreement can be
`
`addressed by both sides during cross-examination" rather than through exclusion).
`
`Finally, Intel's argument that Mr. Chandler "never applied Mr. Huston's
`
`analysis to [the settlement] agreements" again misses the point. Mot. at 7-9. As a
`
`rebuttal expert, Mr. Chandler did not have to apply Mr. Huston's framework to each
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 36537
`
`
`settlement agreement to point out Mr. Huston's inconsistencies. See D.I. 821 at 16-
`
`19.
`
`B. Mr. Chandler Properly Relies On Other Third Party Agreements
`To Rebut Mr. Huston's Opinions On The Form Of Royalty And
`Industry Practices
`Mr. Huston also incorrectly opines that "it is customary in the industry to
`
`agree to lump sum payments—not running royalties—in exchange for a one-way
`
`license to microprocessor patents." Ex. R-4 ¶ 133; ¶ 134
`
`.").
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"
`
`." Id. ¶ 1416;
`
`Ex. R-6 at 161:21-162:8. But these broad statements are contradicted by Mr.
`
`Chandler's rebuttal evidence,
`
`
`
`
`
`, and other agreements that refute Mr. Huston's opinion that lump-sum,
`
` agreements are the industry standard. Ex. R-1 ¶¶ 139-142, 148-
`
`151, 198-214. This is proper rebuttal evidence regardless of whether these
`
`agreements would be "comparable" for an affirmative damages case.
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 36538
`
`
`Indeed, courts permit experts to rely on non-comparable license agreements
`
`for the royalty form (as Mr. Chandler does here). See, e.g., GREE, Inc. v. Supercell
`
`Oy, No. 19-cv-00070, 2020 WL 4288345, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2020)
`
`("Therefore, Smartflash stands for Supercell's proposition that an expert does not
`
`need to first establish comparability of prior licenses in order to rely on them to
`
`determine the form a reasonabl[e] royalty would take in a hypothetical negotiation.")
`
`(citing Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-447, 2014 WL 7336213, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Dec. 23, 2014)); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-cv-00630, 2014 WL
`
`794328, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) (expert permitted to rely on licenses for
`
`"the form of the reasonable royalty (lump-sum versus running royalty)"); Odyssey
`
`Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-cv-01735, 2016 WL 7644790, at *5 (S.D. Cal.
`
`Sept. 14, 2016) (same).
`
`Finally, Mr. Chandler's reliance on Licensing Executive Society ("LES")
`
`surveys and agreements from the ktMINE database (which compiles publicly-
`
`available agreements) is likewise proper rebuttal—here, for Mr. Huston's arguments
`
`that "[l]ump sum payments are the preferred form of a royalty payment for a license
`
`to microprocessor patents." Ex. R-4 ¶ 128. For example, these surveys "confirm that
`
`running royalty rates are commonly used in semiconductor license agreements, and
`
`that even this subset of semiconductor license agreements (publicly disclosed
`
`agreements), contains multiple examples." Ex. R-1 ¶ 214. Intel may cross-examine
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 36539
`
`
`Mr. Chandler on this evidence, but there is no basis for the exclusion of Mr.
`
`Chandler's testimony. See Smartflash, 2014 WL 7336213, at *3 ("Defendants take
`
`issue with Mr. Mills's use of the [same] Licensing Executive Survey, asserting the
`
`licenses surveyed do not sufficiently compare to the hypothetically negotiated
`
`license … Mr. Mills's use of the Licensing Executive Society Survey when
`
`discussing the form of the royalty is … an issue of evidentiary weight.").
`
`C.
`
`Intel Mischaracterizes Mr. Chandler's Opinions On Patent
`Holdout
`Intel's complaints regarding Mr. Chandler's patent holdout opinions similarly
`
`lack support. Intel argues that Mr. Chandler's opinions are based "on conclusory
`
`allegations" and "unsupported credibility attacks." Mot. at 11. But Mr. Chandler
`
`bases his opinions on actual evidence, including:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`,
`
`96:21-97:20; and
`
`
`
`," Ex. R-3 at 114:18-24;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, id. ¶¶ 173-184; Ex. R-3 at 90:10-91:7,
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 36540
`
`
`• Caselaw recognizing the concept of patent holdout. Id. ¶¶ 196-197 (citing
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J.
`
`dissenting)).
`
`As Mr. Chandler explains, Intel's patent licensing practices outside of
`
`litigation—as described by Intel's own corporate witnesses—are fundamentally
`
`inconsistent with a hypothetical negotiation analysis. Ex. R-1 ¶¶ 173-197. For
`
`example,
`
` is
`
`completely at odds with the statutory requirement that a reasonable royalty be
`
`determined "for the use made of the invention by the infringer." 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`There is no way that Mr. Huston's agreements, borne of those holdout policies, can
`
`actually be comparable to the hypothetical licenses because of Intel's policy of
`
`
`
`. Mr. Chandler's opinions on the significant gap between a proper
`
`patent damages analysis and Intel's patent licensing practices are highly relevant,
`
`and there is no basis for exclusion.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`VLSI respectfully requests that the Court deny Intel's motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11068135
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 36541
`
`
`Dated: February 15, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone : (302) 777-0300
`Fax : (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Morgan Chu (admitted pro hac vice)
`Benjamin Hattenbach (admitted pro hac vice)
`Iian D. Jablon (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ian Washburn (admitted pro hac vice)
`Christopher Abernethy (admitted pro hac vice)
`Amy E. Proctor (admitted pro hac vice)
`Dominik Slusarczyk (admitted pro hac vice)
`S. Adina Stohl (admitted pro hac vice)
`Charlotte J. Wen (admitted pro hac vice)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`mchu@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`ijablon@irell.com
`iwashburn@irell.com
`cabernethy@irell.com
`aproctor@irell.com
`dslusarczyk@irell.com
`astohl@irell.com
`cwen@irell.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC
`
`11068135
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 36542
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`The foregoing document complies with the type-volume limitation of this
`
`Court's March 2, 2020 form Scheduling Order For All Case Where Infringement is
`
`Alleged. The text of this brief, including footnotes, was prepared in Times New
`
`Roman, 14 point font. According to the word processing system used to prepare it,
`
`the brief contains 2,469 words, excluding case caption, signature blocks, table of
`
`contents, and table of authorities.
`
`Dated: February 15, 2022
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`
`11068135
`
`- 13 -
`
`