Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01254/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01254-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

FUJITSU LIMITED, a Japanese

corporation, and FUJITSU

MICROELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP., a Taiwanese

corporation, and NANYA TECHNOLOGY

CORP., U.S.A., a California

corporation,

Defendants. 

KLA-TENCOR CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FUJITSU LIMITED and FUJITSU

MICROELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-6613 CW

No. C 08-1254 CW

ORDER CONCERNING

DUTIES AND

INSTRUCTIONS FOR

COURT-APPOINTED

EXPERT DR. DAVID

A. HODGES

If Dr. David A. Hodges consents, the Court will appoint him as

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

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 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

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

behalf of the Court on the technology at issue in this case with

respect to all patents-in-suit. His duties shall include the

following: (i) to provide a basic tutorial to the Court and the

jury on the underlying technology at issue in this case related to

all of the patents-in-suit; (ii) to provide a tutorial, expert

analysis and opinions as to the claim construction issues in this

case related to all patents-in-suit; and (iii) to provide expert

analysis and opinions as to the technical issues in this case

related to all patents-in-suit, including issues concerning

infringement and validity of the asserted claims of all

patents-in-suit. 

Dr. Hodges will be provided with various materials to use as

resources when forming his opinions. Some materials are available

now and will be provided within five days of the entry of an order

appointing him. Other materials will be provided on a rolling

basis as they become available during the course of the litigation. 

The parties believe that these materials may be helpful for Dr.

Hodges to consider for the purposes of forming his opinions. He is

not limited to these materials, and may request additional

information if he believes that it is necessary. He may give these

materials as much weight and consideration as he believes in his

professional judgment is required.

Copies of the following materials will be provided to Dr.

Hodges within five days of the entry of an order appointing him, in

organized binders that are labeled and tabbed: (i) all

patents-in-suit, (ii) the file histories of all patents-in-suit;

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 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

(iii) Plaintiffs’ Patent Local Rule 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted

Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions, dated March 12,

2007; (iv) Plaintiffs’ First Supplemental Patent Local Rule 3-1

Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement

Contentions, dated April 4, 2007; (v) Defendants’ Preliminary

Invalidity Contentions, dated April 30, 2007; (vi) Defendants’

First Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, dated June 27,

2007; (vii) Defendants’ Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity

Contentions, dated January 22, 2008; (viii) Defendants’ Patent

Local Rule 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary

Infringement Contentions, dated March 12, 2007; (ix) Plaintiffs’

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, dated April 30, 2007;

(x) transcripts of all pertinent depositions taken thus far; and

(xi) the up-to-date and all continuing correspondence to and from

the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as it becomes

available regarding reexaminations of all patents-in-suit.

During the course of the litigation, the parties will provide

more materials to Dr. Hodges, as they become available. A few

examples of these materials are as follows. One, the Court expects

that the parties will submit additional infringement and invalidity

contentions. Two, the opening reports of the parties’ experts are

due on 11/12/08 and the rebuttal expert reports are due on 12/2/08. 

Three, the opening, opposition, reply and sur-reply briefs on claim

construction are due on 1/12/09, 2/2/09, 2/23/09 and 3/5/09,

respectively. On or about the same dates that the parties exchange

the above materials with each other, or file them with the Court,

copies shall be sent to Dr. Hodges. Similarly, deposition

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 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

transcripts of the parties’ experts and additional pertinent fact

witnesses will be provided to Dr. Hodges on or about the same dates

that they become available. 

The parties will send the documents to Dr. Hodges jointly. If

the parties disagree about the propriety of providing a certain

document or thing to Dr. Hodges, the parties will seek the Court’s

assistance and neither party shall provide that document or thing

to Dr. Hodges until and unless the Court has resolved the issue. 

Dr. Hodges may look to the expert reports and the deposition

transcripts of the parties’ experts for 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 conclusions are to be his own independent opinions. 

The parties will provide him with a copy of the model jury

instructions for patent cases here in the Northern District of

California. The basic law regarding his tasks will be set out in

these instructions and Dr. Hodges shall abide by them. 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. Hodges will need to attend the claim construction oral

hearing on March 26, 2009. Prior to the hearing, Dr. Hodges shall

review the parties’ claim construction briefs. On or before April

13, 2009, Dr. Hodges shall provide the Court and the parties with

his advisory opinion on claim construction. The advisory opinion

shall include Dr. Hodges’s proposed constructions of the disputed

claim terms and his reasoning for arriving at those constructions.

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 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

Regarding the technical issues in this case, after reviewing

the materials provided to him, and conducting his own independent

analysis, Dr. Hodges will prepare an expert report, containing a

statement of his opinions and the reasons for his opinions. His

report should be sent to the parties by express mail no later than

May 15, 2009. Within a month following submission of Dr. Hodges’s

expert report, the parties may ask him to appear for a deposition

at a time and location that is convenient to him. At the

deposition, the parties can ask him questions, and he will be given

the opportunity to explain his opinions in greater detail prior to

his testimony at trial. Each party may depose Dr. Hodges for up to

7 hours. In his expert report:

(i) Dr. Hodges will offer his opinion on infringement by

determining whether each and every element of the

asserted claims can be found in the accused products. 

Each party’s infringement contention chart will set out

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

Similarly, the parties’ expert reports will track this

element-by-element analysis. Dr. Hodges should conduct

his own independent analysis in the same manner as the

parties in this case. 

(ii) Also, Dr. Hodges will offer an opinion on patent

invalidity due to anticipation, by determining whether or

not each and every element of one or more of the asserted

claims can be found in any one item of prior art. The

parties’ invalidity contention charts will set out their

invalidity-due-to-anticipation theories on an

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 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

element-by-element basis. Similarly, the parties’ expert

reports will track this element-by-element analysis. Dr.

Hodges should conduct his own independent analysis on

anticipation in the same manner as the parties in this

case. 

(iii) Additionally, Dr. Hodges will offer his opinion on

invalidity due to obviousness by determining whether or

not it would have been obvious to combine the teachings

of certain references to achieve the claimed invention. 

The parties’ invalidity contention charts will set out

their invalidity-due-to-obviousness theories on an

element-by-element basis. Similarly, the parties’ expert

reports will track this element-by-element analysis. Dr.

Hodges should conduct his own independent analysis on

obviousness in the same manner as the parties in this

case. 

Lastly, Dr. Hodges will testify at trial on his opinions. The

trial is scheduled to begin on July 13, 2009. The Court and the

parties will attempt to accommodate Dr. Hodges and to give him as

much advance notice as possible as to what day (or 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. Hodges’s reasonable hotel and travel expenses.

Dr. Hodges 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

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 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

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. Hodges 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. Hodges, 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. 

In order to accept this appointment, Dr. Hodges must give his

consent to serve as the Court-appointed expert in this case, and

must acknowledge his responsibility to discharge his duties in

accordance with the instructions set forth in this order, by

signing below and returning the signed original to the Court in the

enclosed envelope.

Dr. Hodges must also confirm that he has no conflict of

interest. Specifically, Dr. Hodges should provide the information

requested in the attached “Disclosure Form.” He may provide this

information in the same envelope containing his consent.

Upon his agreement and the Court’s appointment, the parties

will retain Dr. Hodges. Fujitsu and Defendants (Nanya and KLA)

shall equally share Dr. Hodges’s fees and expenses. Each side will

deposit a retainer of $20,000 in one of its counsel’s trust

account. The parties shall disclose to Dr. Hodges the hourly rates

they are paying to their experts. Dr. Hodges may bill at his usual

hourly rate or at a rate commensurate with the rates paid to the

parties’ expert witnesses.

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/5/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

CONSENT

I consent to serve as the Court’s expert in the cases of

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Nanya Technology Corp., No. C 06-6613, and KLATencor Corp. v. Fujitsu Ltd., No. C 08-1254, and will discharge my

duties in accordance with the instructions provided to me by the

Court.

Dated: 

DAVID A. HODGES

Case 4:08-cv-01254-CW Document 11 Filed 05/05/08 Page 8 of 8