Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 37711
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-966 (CFC) (CJB)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE FROM MARK CHANDLER
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`William F. Lee
`Dominic E. Massa
`Joseph J. Mueller
`Jordan L. Hirsch
`Louis Tompros
`Felicia H. Ellsworth
`Kate Saxton
`Benjamin N. Ernst
`Thomas F. Lampert
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-966 (CFC) (CJB)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE FROM MARK CHANDLER
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`William F. Lee
`Dominic E. Massa
`Joseph J. Mueller
`Jordan L. Hirsch
`Louis Tompros
`Felicia H. Ellsworth
`Kate Saxton
`Benjamin N. Ernst
`Thomas F. Lampert
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 37712
`
`Gregory H. Lantier
`Amanda L. Major
`Joshua L. Stern
`R. Gregory Israelsen
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`
`S. Calvin Walden
`Jeffrey A. Dennhardt
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`(212) 295-6359
`
`Arthur W. Coviello
`Christine E. Duh
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 858-6069
`
`March 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 37713
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`Mr. Chandler’s Opinions About Non-Comparable, Unapportioned Intel
`Settlements Are Inadmissible. ......................................................................... 1
`II. Mr. Chandler Cannot Rely On Other Non-Comparable Licenses To Support
`A Running Royalty. ......................................................................................... 4
`III. Mr. Chandler’s “Patent Holdout” Opinions Should Be Excluded. ................. 5
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 37714
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 6
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-cv-630, 2014 WL 794328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) ............................... 5
`Apple Inc. v. Wi-Lan Inc.,
`25 F.4th 960 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ....................................................................... 1, 3, 4
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 2
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`Nos. 19-cv-00070 & -00071, 2020 WL 4288345 (E.D. Tex. July
`27, 2020) ............................................................................................................... 5
`Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-02848, 2021 WL 1222622 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2021) ......................... 2
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 2, 3, 5
`MLC Intell. Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 3
`Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Nos. 15-cv-1735, -1738, & -1743, 2016 WL 7644790 (S.D. Cal.
`Sept. 14, 2016) ...................................................................................................... 5
`RMail Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-258, 2019 WL 10375642 (E.D. Tex. June 12, 2019) .......................... 2
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-447 & -448, 2014 WL 7336213 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23,
`2014) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 37715
`
`Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 11-cv-421, 2014 WL 12611339 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2014) .......................... 4
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9,
`2021), Dkt. 638 ..................................................................................................... 3
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2,
`2021), Dkt. 507 ..................................................................................................... 6
`EXHIBITS
`The exhibits cited in the brief as “Ex. 1” and “Ex. 3” are attached to the Declaration
`of Thomas F. Lampert in Support Of Intel Corporation’s Motion to Exclude
`Evidence From Mark Chandler. See D.I. 798-01 (Exs. 1, 3). The remainder of the
`exhibits are attached to the declaration of Thomas F. Lampert filed herewith.
`EMPHASES
`
`
`All emphases in quotations are added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 37716
`
`
`
`Intel’s opening brief (D.I. 797, “Mot.”) demonstrated that Mr. Chandler’s
`
`opinions regarding non-comparable and unapportioned licenses violate Federal
`
`Circuit law, and that his misleading opinions about Intel’s licensing practices are
`
`unsupported and irrelevant. VLSI’s opposition (D.I. 883, “Opp.”) fails to overcome
`
`these defects. Mr. Chandler’s opinions should be excluded.
`
`ARGUMENT
`I. Mr. Chandler’s Opinions About Non-Comparable, Unapportioned Intel
`Settlements Are Inadmissible.
`There is no basis for Mr. Chandler to testify about Intel’s settlements. VLSI’s
`
`proffered justifications are without merit.
`
`First, VLSI and Mr. Chandler concede the settlements are not comparable to
`
`a license to the asserted patents. Opp. 3; Ex. 3 [Chandler Tr.] 242:16-17 (“It’s
`
`inappropriate to put forth any of [Intel’s] licenses as comparable[.]”). VLSI’s
`
`admitted failure to meet that “threshold requirement” necessitates exclusion. Apple
`
`Inc. v. Wi-Lan Inc., 25 F.4th 960, 972 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“Sufficient comparability
`
`is a threshold requirement for licenses to be admissible.”).
`
`Second, Mr. Chandler does not rely on the settlements only in “rebuttal.”
`
`Opp. 3-6. He affirmatively asserts these “high-dollar” agreements should be used
`
`in determining damages. Ex. 1 [Chandler Rep.] ¶¶ 149-151. Even if Mr. Chandler’s
`
`opinion were only “rebuttal” to Mr. Huston, he would still be using the settlements
`
`to urge the jury to award more than Mr. Huston’s damages number. Either way,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 37717
`
`VLSI is improperly trying to use non-comparable agreements to skew the damages
`
`horizon. LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 80 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`Third, VLSI identifies no Federal Circuit case holding that non-comparable
`
`agreements can be used in rebuttal or to provide “context”—because there is none.1
`
`VLSI cites only out-of-district cases that are contrary to precedent and/or do not
`
`support VLSI’s position. For example:
`
`• In RMail Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 WL 10375642, at *5 & n.7 (E.D.
`
`Tex. June 12, 2019), the court struck an expert’s reliance on
`
`non-comparable agreements to determine the damages amount, and the
`
`movant did not seek to preclude using the agreements for other reasons.
`
`• In Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc., 2021 WL 1222622, at *33 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Feb. 11, 2021)—which settled before trial—the court did not exclude
`
`an expert’s opinion addressing non-comparable agreements, but neither
`
`did the court allow using admittedly non-comparable agreements to rebut
`
`another expert’s opinion on comparable agreements as VLSI proposes.
`
`
`1 VLSI’s statement that “prior settlements can be relevant to determining damages”
`(Opp. 4) ignores that they must be comparable and have differences accounted for.
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 927 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 37718
`
`• In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 6:21-cv-00057 (W.D.
`
`Tex.), the court—in a decision Intel intends to appeal—erroneously
`
`allowed VLSI to use Intel’s settlements to purportedly provide “context”
`
`about Intel’s licensing practice. Ex. 6 [8/9/21 Order (Dkt. 638)] at 3. But
`
`VLSI ignores that in a later case, the same court correctly precluded Mr.
`
`Chandler from testifying about these same settlements. Ex. 7 [Trial Tr.]
`
`1527:11-1529:22; 1595:20-23 (instructing jury that non-comparable
`
`agreements are not relevant).
`
`Ultimately, VLSI’s cited cases cannot overcome controlling precedent that
`
`bars using non-comparable licenses. Wi-Lan, 25 F.4th at 972 n.5; LaserDynamics,
`
`694 F.3d at 80.
`
`Fourth, VLSI seeks to excuse Mr. Chandler’s failure to account for the
`
`differences between the Intel settlements and the hypothetical license on the basis
`
`that Mr. Chandler offers no damages number himself. Opp. 7. But an expert’s
`
`failure to account for differences in proffered licenses renders such opinions
`
`unreliable. MLC Intell. Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 10 F.4th 1358, 1374-75
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021). VLSI cannot circumvent this rule simply by hiring two damages
`
`experts and having the other—Dr. Sullivan—provide VLSI’s damages number.2
`
`
`2 Nor is Mr. Chandler’s failure to account for differences a mere “disagreement”
`about comparability (Opp. 7)—both parties’ experts agree the settlements are not
`comparable. Supra p. 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 37719
`
`Finally, VLSI fails to defend Mr. Chandler’s opinion that Intel’s settlements
`
`“fit Mr. Huston’s criteria for comparability.” Ex. 3 [Chandler Tr.] 122:7-16. VLSI
`
`instead contends Mr. Chandler “did not need to apply Mr. Huston’s framework.”
`
`Opp. 7. But without doing so, Mr. Chandler’s opinion purporting to apply Mr.
`
`Huston’s framework has no basis. Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp., 2014 WL 12611339,
`
`at *1-3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2014).
`
`II. Mr. Chandler Cannot Rely On Other Non-Comparable Licenses To
`Support A Running Royalty.
`Mr. Chandler also opines that other non-comparable agreements support
`
`awarding damages in the form of a running royalty. But because Mr. Chandler does
`
`not show that any running-royalty agreements are comparable to the hypothetical
`
`license, he cannot use them. Wi-Lan, 25 F.4th at 972 n.5.
`
`VLSI nonetheless argues that Mr. Chandler should be permitted to use
`
`non-comparable licenses to “rebut” Mr. Huston regarding the form of the royalty.
`
`Opp. 8-10. But Mr. Chandler’s running-royalty opinion is not rebuttal; it is offered
`
`affirmatively to support Dr. Sullivan’s running-royalty opinion. Ex. 8 [Sullivan
`
`Rep.] ¶ 115; Ex. 1 [Chandler Rep.] ¶¶ 215-220. Regardless, unreliable opinions
`
`cannot be made reliable by asserting they are “rebuttal.” Supra pp. 1-2.
`
`VLSI cites out-of-district cases to argue that Mr. Chandler can use
`
`non-comparable licenses to support “the royalty form.” Opp. 9. VLSI’s reading of
`
`these cases contradicts controlling precedent—which Intel cited (Mot. 10-11) and
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 37720
`
`VLSI ignores. E.g., LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 80 (finding LES surveys—which
`
`Mr. Chandler cites—“problematic” and “irrelevant” without comparability).
`
`Further, VLSI’s cases do not support using royalty rates from non-comparable
`
`licenses for the royalty form. GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, 2020 WL 4288345, at *3-
`
`4 (E.D. Tex. July 27, 2020) (not allowing expert to “discuss the amount of” non-
`
`comparable licenses); Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 2014 WL 7336213, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Dec. 23, 2014) (similar); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2014 WL 794328,
`
`at *11 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) (similar); Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2016
`
`WL 7644790, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) (licenses comparable for “specific
`
`purpose” of royalty structure).
`
`III. Mr. Chandler’s “Patent Holdout” Opinions Should Be Excluded.
`VLSI claims Mr. Chandler’s opinions disparaging Intel as a “patent holdout”
`
`are based on “actual evidence.” Opp. 10. Not so. Contrary to VLSI’s accusation
`
`that
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 37721
`
`. Ex. 10 [Huston Rep.] ¶ 647.3
`
`VLSI’s patent-holdout accusations also have no legal basis. VLSI cites only
`
`a dissent discussing “hold out” in the injunction context, which is neither relevant
`
`nor precedential. Opp. 11 (citing Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1333
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J. dissenting)).
`
`CONCLUSION
`Mr. Chandler’s unreliable opinions should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`William F. Lee
`Dominic E. Massa
`Joseph J. Mueller
`Jordan L. Hirsch
`Louis Tompros
`Felicia H. Ellsworth
`Kate Saxton
`Benjamin N. Ernst
`Thomas F. Lampert
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`
`
`
`3 In a prior trial between the parties in Texas, the court excluded Mr. Chandler’s
`patent-holdout opinions based on the same evidence. Ex. 11 [2/22/21 Order (Dkt.
`507)] at 2 (“[Mr. Chandler is] [n]ot allowed to testify on
`
`.”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 37722
`
`Gregory H. Lantier
`Amanda L. Major
`Joshua L. Stern
`R. Gregory Israelsen
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`
`S. Calvin Walden
`Jeffrey A. Dennhardt
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`(212) 295-6359
`
`Arthur W. Coviello
`Christine E. Duh
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 858-6069
`
`March 8, 2022
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 37723
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`I hereby certify that the text of the foregoing document uses a 14-point Times
`
`New Roman typeface and contains 1,205 words as determined by the word count
`
`feature of Microsoft Word (excluding the caption, tables, signature block, and
`
`certifications).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeremey A. Tigan
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 37724
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 8, 2022, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
`
`notification of such filing to all registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served
`
`on March 8, 2022, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Morgan Chu, Esquire
`Ben Hattenbach, Esquire
`Iian D. Jablon, Esquire
`Christopher Abernethy, Esquire
`Amy E. Proctor, Esquire
`Dominik Slusarczyk, Esquire
`S. Adina Stohl, Esquire
`Charlotte J. Wen, Esquire
`Ian Washburn, Esquire
`Michael D. Harbour, Esquire
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 952 Filed 03/15/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 37725
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Ben J. Yorks, Esquire
`A. Matthew Ashley, Esquire
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Steven Lieberman, Esquire
`Daniel R. McCallum, Esquire
`Rachel M. Echols, Esquire
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W. Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`/s/ Jeremey A. Tigan
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
