throbber
Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 929 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 36525
`
`
`
`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 -
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket