Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 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

1

 Although there are multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, for convenience, they

are here referred to in the singular as "Avago" and "Elan."

*E-FILED 7/20/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP PTE

LTD. and AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES ECBU IP

LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORP. and

ELAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

GROUP,

Defendants. 

Case No. C04-05385 JW (HRL)

ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE

PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS' EXPERT

REPORT OF PROFESSOR BERTHOLD

K.P. HORN

Re: Docket No. 287

This is a patent infringement action involving two patents ("the '780 patent" and "the

'804 patent") for sensors used in optical computer mice. Avago sues for infringement and Elan

counterclaims for invalidity.1

 Avago moves to strike portions of Defendant's expert report by

Berthold K.P. Horn ("Horn Report") for non-compliance with the local patent rules. 

1. Horn Report ¶ ¶ 87-93: New Invalidity Theory

Plaintiff first moves to strike paragraphs 87-93 on the basis that they assert an invalidity

theory for the '804 patent based on lack of written description and enablement pursuant to 35

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 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

2

 Elan's intention to pursue these theories was disclosed to Avago in a March letter

and in an administrative request. See, Kim Decl. Exs. I and H.. 

3

 Rader Decl. to Motion to Amend, Ex. L.

4

 Elan also points to the use of plural language when it referred to the invalidity

arguments and theories. However, the burden was on Elan to show good cause for leave to

amend with respect to each new invalidity argument.

5 Rader Decl. to Motion to Amend, Ex. L. 

2

U.S.C. § 112 ("the § 112 theory"). According to Plaintiff, Defendant did not include this theory

in its original Final Invalidity Contentions ("FIC") and did not seek leave of the court to amend

the FIC to include the § 112 theory for the '804 patent. Elan, however, claims it was granted

leave to amend its FIC for this theory.

Several months after the claim construction hearing on Elan's original FIC, Elan notified

Avago of its intent to file a motion for summary judgment on new theories. Specifically, Elan

said it had invalidity arguments for the '780 and '804 patents based on 35 U.S.C. § 112.2

 Avago

objected because the § 112 theory was not in the FIC. During meet and confer, Elan's counsel

sent a letter to Avago attaching proposed FIC which added the § 112 theory only for the '780

patent.3 When these negotiations failed, Elan moved this court to amend its FIC. Before that

motion was heard, Elan filed for summary judgment on both '780 and '804, but argued the § 112

theory only for the '780 patent. [Docket Nos. 232 and 239]. Two weeks after the summary

judgment motions were filed, the parties appeared before this court on Elan's motion to amend

the FIC. The order that followed [Docket No. 252] granted Elan's motion. Elan then served an

amended FIC which included the § 112 theory on both patents. 

It is necessary to first consider Elan's motion to amend its FIC and the context in which

it was decided to examine whether Elan now permissibly includes the § 112 theory on the '804

patent. Defendant acknowledges that in its motion to amend, the '804 patent was mentioned

only in passing. In fact, Elan's ten page brief includes a single sentence specifically referring to

the '804 patent.4

 As part of the declaration in support of that motion, Elan attached the earlier

letter to Avago and proposed FIC attachment in which Elan sought amendment of '780 only.5

Furthermore, the motion to amend makes clear that its purpose is to cure the procedural defect

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 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

6

 Although not decided here, the likelihood that Elan would now be granted leave to

amend is also considered. Of particular concern is the prejudice to Avago at this stage of

litigation and concerns over Elan's diligence in seeking this amendment. IXYS Corp. v.

Advanced Power Tech., Inc., 2004 US DIST LEXIS 10934, *3-*4 (N.D. Cal.) (in the

amendment determination, "prejudice is the touchstone of the inquiry").

7 "91. [...] I now compare the prior art to claim 14 of the ’804 patent." 

8 Elan's 3-3 claim chart cites to 6:64-7:5 of the Jackson Patent, while Elan's expert

cites to Figs. 3A and 3B, col. 9:1-12, 9:54-58, and 11:28-34 of the same. 

3

in the filed-but-not-yet-heard summary judgment motion (i.e., to add to its FIC the new

invalidity argument for the '780 patent). Finally, this court's order granting the amendment to

the FIC specifically limits it to one of Avago's patents (i.e., the '780 patent). Elan chose not to

pursue amendment to its FIC to add the § 112 theory for the '804 patent; it can not rewrite

history now to include what it did not seek before.6

Even after concluding that the Horn paragraphs relating to the § 112 theory on the '804

patent should be stricken, there is still the question of which paragraphs are implicated. The

report indicates that paragraphs 91-93 are the introductory paragraphs to Horn's comparison of

prior art to claim 14 of the '804 patent.7 Avago has raised no concerns with respect to this

particular topic, and the court sees none. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion with respect to

paragraphs 87-90, which pertain to invalidity for lack of written description and enablement

under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for patent '804, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to strike paragraphs 91-

93 is DENIED. 

2. New Prior Art Citations, Omitted Citations and Conflicting Conclusions

Based on the arguments addressed below, Avago moves to strike these paragraphs and

the claim chart exhibits (created by the expert) incorporated into those paragraphs. 

a) Horn Report ¶ 54 and Ex. 15: New Citations to Prior Art References

Avago argues that paragraph 54 and associated exhibit 15 should be stricken because the

expert relies on different prior art pinpoint citations than those in Elan’s 3-3 claim charts.8

 The

antecedent of this dispute is Avago's earlier motion to compel more specificity in Elan's claim

charts. [Docket No. 156]. There, Elan used the signal "see e.g." for its pinpoint citations to

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 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

9 Local Patent Rule 3-3(a) requires that the FIC include " the identity of each item of

prior art" upon which the party intends to rely. Rule 3-3(c), on the other hand, requires "a

chart identifying where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each

asserted claim is found."

4

prior art reference page or column numbers. Avago's motion was denied, but the order relied in

part on Elan's representations in open court "that the exemplar given with the signal is the prior

art reference that will be relied upon." [Docket No. 202]. Avago interprets this order as

precluding Elan from relying on different pinpoint citations than those in the FIC. Elan,

however, contends that the court's use of the term "prior art reference" refers to the entire prior

art document (or alternatively, to a particular concept from that prior art document), not the

pinpoint citation. Thus, Elan denies that the order limits it to a specific page or line of text. 

Elan's argument respecting the definition of "prior art reference" ignores the distinction

between Local Patent Rules 3-3(a) and 3-3(c).9 Unlike 3-3(a), 3-3(c) requires Elan to cite

specifically within the prior art reference, not merely to the entire document or some general

element therein. This court's conclusion that Elan met 3-3's requirements explicitly relies upon

the representations made at oral argument by Elan's counsel that it had chosen and specifically

cited its best example and would not assert unspecified others. Defendant is limited to the

pinpoint citations disclosed in its FIC. Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, 1998 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 17564, *7-*8 (N.D. Cal.). Accordingly, the motion to strike paragraph 54 and

exhibit 15 is GRANTED. 

b) Horn Report ¶ 57 and Ex. 17: Omitted Citations

 Avago moves to strike paragraph 57 and associated exhibit 17 because Horn omits

many of the references Elan originally relied upon it its claim chart. In the exhibit, Horn cites

to 7-9 of the Jackson patent. Avago complains that, although Elan cited 7-9 of Jackson in its 3-

3 claim chart, it also cited 5 and 18-21. As such, Avago contends that these references are

"decoys" intended to hide Elan's "real" theories. Elan counters that it is not required to utilize

all references cited in its FIC. 

Where a party has not relied on all, or many, of its original claim chart citations, courts

typically favor giving the disclosing party latitude in "over-citing" invalidity arguments in its

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 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

10 Paragraph 66 incorporates exhibit 21, which "details how each element of the

asserted claim 4 [of '780] is taught or suggested by the Tanner references in view of Jackson

and/or Szeliski." Horn concludes, according to Avago, that Tanner does not disclose the

"correlation surface" limitation and does not cite specifically to Tanner. Elan's claim chart

concludes that the Tanner reference discloses that limitation and cites extensively to Tanner.

11 IXYS Corp. v. Advanced Power Technology, Inc., 321 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1153, n. 19

(N.D. Cal., 2004) (although defendant never suggested specific combination of references in

its invalidity contentions, as required under Local Rules, the court permitted the claim

because plaintiff had long been on notice of the potential combination).

5

FIC. Because the local patent rules limit parties to those arguments disclosed in the FIC, it

would be unfair to punish parties that are careful to include all potential arguments early in the

litigation. Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17564, *7-*8

(N.D. Cal.). Elan's expert is not required to incorporate every citation from Elan's claim chart

and the court will not strike portions of the report on this basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion

to strike paragraph 57 and exhibit 17 is DENIED.

c) Horn Report ¶ ¶ 66 and 74 and Exs. 21 and 22: Conflicting Conclusions

Relying on the omitted citation argument (explained above) and further claiming that

Horn's conclusions are inconsistent with Elan's claim chart conclusions, Avago moves to strike

paragraphs 66 and 74 and exhibits 21 and 22. Paragraph 74 of the Horn Report, along with

exhibit 22, detail "how each element of the asserted claim 4 [of '780] is taught or suggested by

Adan in view of Jackson and/or Szeliski." Elan concluded that Adan teaches that the patent is

obvious, citing to Figure 4 of Adan and associated text. Avago finds inconsistency where the

expert concludes that the Adan patent does not specifically teach this point and where the

expert's chart does not to cite to Adan. Avago makes a nearly identical argument with respect

to paragraph 66 and the associated exhibit 21.10 

Review of these portions of the report identified by Plaintiff as inconsistent reveals no

basis for striking. Although the expert clarifies the conclusions reached by Elan, there is no

obvious inconsistency. Further, the expert relies on portions of prior art that were previously

disclosed. Therefore, even though the particular combinations were not disclosed, Avago had

fair notice of the potential for those conclusions.11 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to strike

paragraphs 66 and 74 and exhibits 21 and 22 is DENIED.

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 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

12 It is undisputed that Elan served these articles the day after the expert report was

served. See, Steinsapir Decl., Ex. 10. 

13 The article is entitled, “Measuring Visual Motion from Image Sequences."

14 The fact that the Anadan article was cited in Szeliski is no help to Elan. That an

article is cited in a disclosed prior art reference is insufficient notice that a party intends to

rely on the article. 

6

3. Horn Report ¶ ¶ 15-16: New Prior Art

Finally, Plaintiff moves to strike paragraphs 15 and 16 on the basis that the expert relies

on previously undisclosed prior art references to show the state of prior art for the '780 patent.12

Elan counters that Avago was put on notice of these references because they were cited in the

previously disclosed Szeliski reference. Additionally, Defendant argues that the expert is not

relying on these documents, but is merely “working backwards from" the Szeliski reference. 

Paragraph 15 begins by identifying the P. Anadan article13 cited to in the Szeliski

reference. Horn then explains the general content of that article, stating that it "includes a

thorough comparison of 'gradient-based' and 'correlation-based' methods for determining motion

from image sequences." Additionally, Horn cites to particular portions of the Anadan article,

including a reference to a page of Anadan which discusses earlier use of "confidence

information" by various authors, specifically named in the paragraph. It then mentions other

publications by Anadan which pertain to the state of the prior art of the '780 patent. The

paragraph concludes by quoting from the abstract of the Anadan article. In paragraph 16, Horn

states that his conclusion on the state of prior art is based on the "above references."

Horn is not “merely working backward” from Szeliski.14 The report elaborates on the

Anadan article. Further, the references do not end there. The identification of various authors

cited within Anadan, as well as references to other Anadan publications, raise the inference that

Elan might rely on any of these. Here, Horn relies on previously undisclosed prior art in

reaching his conclusion. Local Rule 3-3(a) requires Elan to identify those references it intends

to rely upon. That was not done here. Thus, the motion to strike paragraphs 15 and 16 is

GRANTED. 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/20/07 ____________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com 

Hsin-Yi Cindy Feng cfeng@akingump.com 

Alan J. Heinrich aheinrich@irell.com 

Yitai Hu yhu@akingump.com 

Sang Hui Michael Kim mkim@akingump.com, btseng@akingump.com,

nthreadgill@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com 

Samuel Kai Lu slu@irell.com 

Richard Elgar Lyon , III rlyon@irell.com, CMcEntee@irell.com, jgordon@irell.com,

mwilliams@irell.com, rick.lyon@gmail.com 

Gary C. Ma gma@akingump.com 

David Craig McPhie dmcphie@irell.com, jrichter@irell.com 

Elizabeth Hannah Rader erader@akingump.com, btseng@akingump.com,

nmarie@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com, ytanguay@akingump.com 

Jonathan Philip Steinsapir jsteinsapir@irell.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 7/20/07

 /s/ KRO 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 352 Filed 07/20/07 Page 8 of 8