Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02187/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-02187-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff and 

Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

Q-LITY COMPUTER INC., QUANTA COMPUTER

INC., and QUANTA COMPUTER USA INC.,

Defendants and 

Counterclaimants. /

No. C 01-2187 CW 

DUTIES AND

INSTRUCTIONS FOR

COURT-APPOINTED

EXPERT DR.

DOUGLAS BURGER

If Dr. Douglas Burger consents, the Court will appoint him as

its expert witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 706. As the Court-appointed

expert, Dr. Burger shall serve as a neutral, independent expert on

behalf of the Court on the technology at issue in this case. His

duties shall be to provide expert analysis and opinions as to the

technical issues in this case, including issues concerning

infringement and validity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff does not argue that claims 15-17 of the '733 patent

are infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Therefore Dr.

Burger need only address literal infringement for those claims.

2

Nos. 4,939,641, 5,077,733 and 5,379,379 (the '641, '733 and '379

patents). Specifically, he will be asked whether claims 1 and 14

of the '641 patent, claims 15-17 of the '733 patent and claims 1

and 7 of the '379 patent are infringed literally or under the

doctrine of equivalents by the accused products of Defendants1 and

whether claims 1 and 14 of the '641 patent and claims 15-17 of the

'733 patent are invalid for reasons related to technology.

Dr. Burger shall have various materials to use as resources

when forming his opinions. These materials will be provided in

organized binders that are labeled and tabbed and shall include the

patents-in-suit, the prosecution histories of the patents-in-suit,

the Court’s claim construction order, the parties' infringement and

invalidity contentions, the Federal Circuit decision, LG Elecs.,

Inc. v. Bizcom Elecs., Inc., 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the

parties’ technical expert reports and the deposition transcripts of

the parties’ respective technical experts. The parties shall also

provide the Court-appointed expert with copies of the parties’

supplemental expert reports, and technical experts’ deposition

transcripts. 

Dr. Burger may request in writing with notice to all parties

any information or documentation referenced in the documents

provided, which the appropriate party shall provide. Additional

materials will be made available to the Court-appointed expert by

the parties as requested.

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Dr. Burger may give these materials as much weight and

consideration as he believes in his professional judgment is

required. Some of the materials, such as the parties' summary

judgment briefs, may be helpful to consider because they frame the

parties' key contentions, but they may also contain attorney

arguments and discussions on unrelated legal matters that are not

relevant. Some of these materials may also mention other patents

that are no longer at issue in this case. 

One of the binders that Dr. Burger will be given will be

labeled "LGE's Infringement Contentions/Quanta's Invalidity

Contentions." This binder will contain charts setting out certain

disclosures the parties must make under the local rules that govern

all patent cases in this district. LGE's charts contain its

infringement contentions, setting out the patents' asserted claims

and, on an element-by-element basis, its theory as to why those

elements are found in Defendants' accused products. Similarly, the

Quanta Defendants' charts contain their invalidity contentions,

setting out the patents' asserted claims and their theories as to

why those elements are invalid. 

In addition, the parties will provide Dr. Burger with expert

reports from their experts, which address all of the issues for

which opinions from Dr. Burger will be required. Among other

things, Dr. Burger may look to these reports to provide guidance as

to what the experts and the parties believe are the key issues to

be addressed in this case. However, it is not his role to critique

the parties' experts. His opinions are to be his own independent

opinions. 

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

As Dr. Burger will see from the parties' expert witness

reports, there are some basic rules under patent law that he should

follow, including the requirement that he must follow prior court

orders interpreting the meaning of certain patent claim terms. He

is not required to provide a detailed analysis of patent law. The

basic law regarding the task will be set out in these instructions,

and can also be seen in the expert reports. If Dr. Burger requires

further guidance regarding patent law terminology, or the relevant

legal standards, this Court can provide him with a copy of the

model jury instructions for patent cases here in the Northern

District of California. In addition, he will have the opportunity

to ask questions, as described below, in the event that a patent

law issue comes up that was not addressed by these materials. 

Dr. Burger may be asked to provide a basic tutorial to this

Court and the jury on the underlying technology at issue in this

case. 

In addition, as noted above, Dr. Burger will need to offer his

opinion on infringement by determining whether each and every

element of the asserted claims can be found in Defendants' accused

products. As noted, LGE's infringement contention charts set out

its infringement theory on an element-by-element basis. Similarly,

the parties' expert reports track this element-by-element analysis,

including Defendants' response to LGE's infringement claims. Dr.

Burger should conduct his own independent analysis in the same

manner as has been done by the parties in this case. The parties

will provide him with blank versions of these claim charts in

electronic format for his convenience.

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

As noted above, Dr. Burger will also need to offer an opinion

on patent invalidity. Dr. Burger should conduct his own

independent analysis on invalidity in the same manner as has been

done by the parties in this case. 

After reviewing the materials provided, and conducting his own

independent analysis, Dr. Burger will prepare an expert report,

containing a statement of his opinions and the reasons for his

opinions. Dr. Burger may want to attach the above-referenced claim

chart that he may create as an exhibit to his report. The Court

and parties are looking for a basic statement of Dr. Burger's

opinions in this case. Although he may look to other expert

reports for guidance as to formatting and standard content, no

specific format is required. The report shall contain a complete

statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons

therefore; the data or other information considered by the witness

in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or

support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness,

including a list of all publications authored by the witness within

the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for the study

and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the

witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within

the preceding four years. The report should be served on the

parties by May 30, 2008. 

Following submission of Dr. Burger's expert report, the

parties may ask him to appear for a deposition at a time and

location that is convenient. At the deposition, the parties can

ask him questions and he will be given the opportunity to explain

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

his opinions in greater detail prior to his testimony at trial. 

Each party may depose Dr. Burger for ten hours. 

Lastly, Dr. Burger will need to testify at trial on his

opinions. The trial is currently scheduled to begin on November

12, 2008 and may continue into the middle of December. The Court

expects that Dr. Burger will be called to testify on the first or

second day of trial and on the last day or days of trial. The

Court and the parties will attempt to accommodate Dr. Burger's

schedule and to give him as much advance notice as possible as to

the days he will be needed to testify. Trials are complex matters,

however, involving many witnesses, so flexibility will be required. 

The parties will pay for all of Dr. Burger's reasonable hotel and

travel expenses. 

Dr. Burger may contact the Court, by calling its clerk at

(510) 637-3542, if questions come up or if he encounters difficulty

in accomplishing his assigned tasks. The clerk will arrange a

conference call with the attorneys. He may also contact the Court

by letter, with a carbon copy to the parties, or by emailing the 

clerk and "cc"-ing the parties. The clerk's email address is

sheilah_cahill@cand.uscourts.gov. In addition, Dr. Burger may

contact the parties directly, by using the e-mail addresses that

they will provide to him, if he needs additional documents or other

information. Dr. Burger, however, shall not contact only one

party, as it is important that both sides be given the chance to

communicate with him jointly if needed. The parties will set up a

conference call if necessary. 

Subject to his agreement to do so, the parties will retain Dr.

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Burger. LGE shall pay for half of Dr. Burger's fees and expenses;

the Quanta Defendants shall pay for the other half. Each side will

deposit a retainer of $20,000 in the Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker trust accounts respectively,

which Dr. Burger may bill at his hourly rate or at an agreed rate

commensurate with the rates paid to the parties' expert witnesses. 

Dr. Burger will also bill his expenses. The retainer will be

replenished when nearly depleted in $20,000 increments. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/6/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LG ELECTONICS INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Q-LITY COMPUTER INC. et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV01-02187 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court,

Northern District of California.

That on December 6, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Douglas C. Burger

1 University Station, #C0500

Dept. of Computer Sciences

The University of Texas

Austin, TX 78712-0233

Dated: December 6, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:01-cv-02187-CW Document 1102 Filed 12/06/07 Page 8 of 8