Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 283-1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 197 PageID #:
` 12466
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No. 18-966-CFC
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`))))))))))
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC’S
`INITIAL IDENTIFICATION OF ASSERTED PATENT CLAIMS
`PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S APRIL 22, 2019 MEMORANDUM ORDER (D.I. 136)
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s April 22, 2019 Memorandum Order (D.I. 136) requiring Plaintiff
`
`VLSI Technology LLC (“VLSI”) to, by April 26, 2019, provide Defendant Intel Corporation
`
`(“Intel”) an initial identification of “no more than 25 asserted claims” before claim construction
`
`proceedings begin in the above-captioned litigation, VLSI provides the following disclosure:
`
`Patent No.
`
`US 6,212,633
`US 7,246,027
`US 7,247,552
`US 7,523,331
`US 8,081,026
`
`Asserted Claims
`(VLSI Paragraph 4(c) Disclosures)
`1-3, 5, 12-16, 18, 24-30, 34-36
`1-3, 5-12, 18-20
`1-20
`1-10
`1-10, 13-20
`
`Ordered April 26, 2019
`Initial Identification of 25 Claims
`1, 13
`1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 18-20
`2, 11, 20
`1, 2, 4, 6, 7
`1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 17, 20
`
`
`
`VLSI provides this disclosure solely because the Court has ordered it, over VLSI’s VLSI provides this disclosure solely because the Court has ordered it, over VLSI’s
`
`
`
`express objection. See, e.g., Minute Entry for Status Conference Held on April 3, 2019; D.I. 119-express objection.
`
`1 (VLSI’s presentation slides used during April 3, 2019 Status Conference); D.I. 127 (VLSI
`
`Letter to the Court dated April 8, 2019); D.I. 131 (Intel letter to the Court dated April 10, 2019);
`
`INTEL 1021
`Intel v. VLSI
`IPR2019-01196
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 283-1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 3 of 197 PageID #:
` 12467
`
`D.I. 133 (VLSI letter to the Court dated April 12, 2019); D.I. 136 (April 22, 2019 Memorandum
`
`Order).
`
`all of the
`As VLSI explained in connection with the April 3, 2019 Status Conference, all of the
`
`
`Asserted Claims identified by VLSI in its disclosures pursuant to Paragraph 4(c) of the Delawareaa
`Asserted Claims identified by VLSI in its disclosures pursuant to Paragraph 4(c) of the Delaware
`
`Default Standard for Discovery (“Paragraph 4(c) Disclosures”) each present “unique issues as to
`Default Standard for Discovery (“Paragraph 4(c) Disclosures”) each present “unique issues as to
`
`liability or damages.”
`liability or damages.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). Among other things, VLSI demonstrated that each such Asserted Claim
`
`presents “unique questions of validity or infringement.” Id. at 1313 (explaining that a unique
`
`issue as to liability may be a noninfringement or invalidity defense that “does not apply in
`
`substantially the same manner” to other asserted claims); D.I. 119-1 at 2-16 (VLSI slides
`
`VLSI maintains that its due
`demonstrating unique noninfringement and invalidity issues). VLSI maintains that its due
`
`process rights will be violated if VLSI’s rights as to any of the Asserted Claims are adjudicated
`process rights will be violated if VLSI’s rights as to any of the Asserted Claims are adjudicated
`
`in this litigation without the Court permitting VLSI to assert all such Asserted Claims at trial.
`in this litigation without the Court permitting VLSI to assert all such Asserted Claims at trial. See
`
`Nuance Commcn’s, Inc. v. ABBYY USA Software House, Inc., 813 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (explaining that, “had the patentee shown the district court that the excluded claims
`
`present unique legal issues, these claims’ exclusion could violate due process.”) (citing Katz, 639
`
`F.3d at 1312-13).
`
`Additionally, as VLSI explained in connection with the April 3, 2019 Status Conference,
`
`Intel’s noninfringement and invalidity contentions have been severely deficient, thus inhibiting
`
`VLSI’s ability to reliably determine which of its Asserted Claims may be stronger than others.
`
`See, e.g., D.I. 119-1 at 17-25. Intel’s compliance with its discovery obligations has also been
`
`severely deficient, and numerous discovery disputes are in progress and/or are the subject of
`
`ongoing correspondence between the parties (which VLSI hereby incorporates by reference).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 283-1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 4 of 197 PageID #:
` 12468
`
`Court ordered case narrowing thus violates VLSI’s due process rights for this additional reason,
`
`because VLSI presently lacks the information needed to make informed decisions regarding
`
`which Asserted Claims to include in the ordered identification of 25 claims. See Katz, 639 F.3d
`
`at 1313 n.9 (noting that “a claim selection order could come too early in the discovery process,
`
`denying the plaintiff the opportunity to determine whether particular claims might raise separate
`
`issues of infringement or invalidity in light of the defendants’ accused products and proposed
`
`defenses.”).
`
`Accordingly, VLSI expressly reserves all rights to, at a later date, seek to assert at trial in
`
`this litigation any and/or all of the Asserted Claims that VLSI identified in its Paragraph 4(c)
`
`Disclosures. See also D.I. 136, Memorandum Order at 2 n.1 (“Plaintiff may seek to add at a later
`
`date asserted claims . . . upon a showing of good cause that includes a demonstration that the
`
`addition of the proposed new claims . . . is necessary to vindicate [VLSI’s] due process rights.”).
`
`All rights are expressly reserved.
`
`Dated: April 26, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`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)
`Ben Hattenbach (admitted pro hac vice)
`Iian D. Jablon (admitted pro hac vice)
`Christopher Abernethy (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 283-1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 5 of 197 PageID #:
` 12469
`
`Amy E. Proctor (admitted pro hac vice)
`Dominik Slusarczyk (admitted pro hac vice)
`S. Adina Stohl (admitted pro hac vice)
`Leah Johannesson (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
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`mchu@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`ijablon@irell.com
`cabernethy@irell.com
`aproctor@irell.com
`dslusarczyk@irell.com
`astohl@irell.com
`ljohannesson@irell.com
`cwen@irell.com
`
`Attorneys for VLSI Technology LLC
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 283-1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 6 of 197 PageID #:
` 12470
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I, Brian E. Farnan, hereby certify that on April 26, 2019, a copy of Plaintiff VLSI
`
`Technology LLC’s Initial Identification of Asserted Patent Claims Pursuant to the Court’s April
`
`22, 2019 Memorandum Order (D.I. 136) was served on the following as indicated:
`
`Via E-Mail
`Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Jeremy A. Tigan
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation
`
`Via E-Mail
`Mark N. Reiter
`Omar F. Amin
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`mreiter@gibsondunn.com
`oamin@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation
`
`Via E-Mail
`Jordan L. Hirsch
`William F. Lee
`Amanda L. Major
`David C. Marcus
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Louis W. Tompros
`Kathryn Zalewski
`Liv Herriot
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`jordan.hirsch@wilmerhale.com
`william.lee@wilmerhale.com
`amanda.major@wilmerhale.com
`david.marcus@wilmerhale.com
`mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
`louis.tompros@wilmerhale.com
`kathryn.zalewski@wilmerhale.com
`liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`
`
`
`