Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02177/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02177-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3COM CORP,

Plaintiff,

v

REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP,

Defendant. /

No C 03-2177 VRW

ORDER

 The court has before it motions in limine filed by both

parties. As the court writes principally for the parties, it will

simply address seriatim certain issues raised in those motions,

without laying out the full factual background of each of the

motions.

I

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from calling Chi-Lie

Wang at trial. Chi-Lie Wang was originally identified by 3Com as a

witness for his role as an inventor of the ‘446 patent. Since that

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 19
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

patent claim was invalidated on summary judgment, 3Com notified

Realtek that it no longer intended to have him appear at trial, but

Realtek continues to seek Mr Wang’s appearance.

3Com argues that the only reason Realtek could be seeking

Mr Wang’s appearance is to introduce to the jury the “irrelevant,

confusing and prejudicial cause of the Court’s prior sanction

order,” which is the subject of another of 3Com’s motions in

limine.

It appears that Mr Wang, who was involved in the testing

of accused products in the early stages of this litigation, may be

able to offer testimony that supports Realtek’s argument that 3Com

could not have given actual notice of infringement to Realtek by

its January 27, 2003 letter because at that time, even 3Com was

unclear as to which products allegedly infringed its patents. 

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from calling

Chi-Lie Wang at trial is DENIED.

II

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from proffering

witnesses first disclosed in its witness list. There are three

individuals on Realtek's trial witness list that were not

previously disclosed: Sun-Chien "Alex" Chiu (president of Realtek);

Yee-Wei Huang (head of international marketing for Realtek);

unnamed (AMD Custodian of Records). 

3Com argues that none of these witnesses was identified

in Realtek's initial disclosures or discovery responses as a

witness with percipient knowledge of the issues. 3Com argues that

failure to identify these witnesses early on was a violation of

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 19
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

FRCP 26, and that FRCP 37(c) precludes Realtek from now using these

witnesses at trial.

Realtek counters that Messrs Chiu and Huang, the Realtek

employees, will simply provide background information and introduce

the company. This is a notably weak justification for calling

these witnesses. Although the court declines to grant 3Com’s

motion in limine regarding Messrs Chiu and Huang, Realtek will have

to provide a more substantial justification for their testimony.

As for the AMD Custodian of Records, Realtek argues that

calling this witness would be unnecessary but for 3Com's hearsay

and authentication challenges to certain documents, which 3Com has

refused to settle by stipulation. The parties should either

resolve this informally or take it up with the court at trial.

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from

proffering witnesses first disclosed in its witness list is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

III

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from proffering

witnesses first disclosed on the final day of fact discovery. This

motion in limine now applies to two witnesses, as Realtek has

removed Basil Alwan from its witness list.

3Com argues that because Realtek waited until the last

day of the fact discovery period to disclose the names of two

witnesses (Manohar Mahavadi and Gururaj Fingh a/k/a Gururaj Sing)

with knowledge of the alleged AMD prior art, 3Com was unable to

serve subpoenas on these non-parties before the discovery cut-off

date.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 19
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

Realtek offers mediocre justification for its late

notice, and notes that it technically provided timely notice. More

convincingly, Realtek notes that 3Com never requested Realtek's

agreement or leave of court to subpoena those witnesses in the

nearly five months since discovery cut-off.

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from

proffering witnesses first disclosed on the final day of fact

discovery is DENIED.

IV

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from referring to or

introducing the court’s May 5, 2005 order and from proffering

evidence relating thereto. 3Com argues that there is no probative

value to the May 5, 2005 order (Doc #251), several declarations

related to it and the adverse trial testimony of former 3Com

employee Chi-Lie Wang. 3Com argues that the order, in which 3Com

was sanctioned for conduct relating to the testing of products

accused in preliminary infringement contentions against D-Link, is

highly prejudicial. 

Realtek appears to argue that the order is relevant

because it will help Realtek argue that the January 27, 2003 letter

from 3Com to Realtek could not have provided actual notice of

infringement to Realtek because at that time even 3Com was confused

about which products infringed its patents.

Any probative value of the order appears to be

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and

confusing the jury. 

Nonetheless, the facts that led to the order are relevant

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 4 of 19
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

to whether 3Com knew which Realtek products were allegedly

infringing at the time it purportedly notified Realtek of

infringement. The discovery dispute that led to sanctions involved

3Com submitting testing data for D-Link products that contained

Realtek chipsets, even though those D-Link products were not the

ones identified in 3Com's preliminary infringement contentions. 

Realtek should be able to introduce this evidence to the jury

without using the order itself or the fact of sanctions.

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from

referring to or introducing the court’s May 5, 2005 order and from

proffering evidence relating thereto is GRANTED only as to the

order itself and the fact of sanctions against 3Com.

V

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from proffering

certain opinion testimony of Dr Alan J Cox. Dr Alan J Cox is

Realtek's damages expert, who will rebut 3Com's damages expert.

3Com argues first that Dr Cox relies on undisclosed

methodology and data in his calculation of the reasonable royalties

that Realtek hypothetically would pay for the patents-in-suit, in

violation of FRCP 26(a)(2) and 37(c)(1) and FRE 702. Dr Cox's

opinions are based on his calculations of Realtek's "operating

profit margin." In addition, 3Com argues that Dr Cox, an

economist, opines on technical matters about which he is not

competent to testify, including the effect on the reasonable

royalty of patent-stacking and the availability of non-infringing

substitutes for the patents-in-suit.

Realtek responds first that Dr Cox did disclose the basis

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 5 of 19
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

for his calculations of a hypothetical operating margin (Realtek's

annual reports), and notes that to the extent the data already

provided is not fully clear, 3Com will have the opportunity to

cross-examine Dr Cox and the jury will determine his reliability. 

As to 3Com's second argument, Realtek responds that Dr Cox's

opinions regarding the potential effect of patent stacking and

non-infringing alternatives do not require any technical expertise;

his opinion merely serves to illustrate the potential effect of

these important factors – which 3Com's expert, Dr Napper, did not

include in his analysis – on reasonable royalty rates.

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from

proffering certain opinion testimony of Dr Alan J Cox is DENIED.

VI

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from proffering the

opinion testimony of Farzin Firoozmand. Mr Firoozmand is Realtek's

expert who has submitted expert reports on the prior art to and

invalidity of the patents-in-suit.

3Com makes several arguments that all or part of his

testimony should be excluded. First, 3Com argues that Mr

Firoozmand's opinions as to anticipation and obviousness are

impermissible legal conclusions; second, 3Com argues that his

testimony regarding conception and reduction to practice are

impermissible legal conclusions; third, 3Com argues that Mr

Firoozmand's opinion as to what is prior art is an impermissible

legal conclusion and is based on unreliable evidence (such as

determining the sales date of a prior art reference from a date

printed on a preliminary datasheet and using a 1994 datasheet to

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 6 of 19
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

opine on how a prior art reference worked in 1991). 

3Com also argues that Mr Firoozmand's opinions are not

based on claim definitions established in the Revised Joint Claim

Construction and Prehearing Statement.

Regarding 3Com's allegations that various portions of Mr

Firoozmand's testimony are impermissible legal conclusions, Realtek

argues that they are permissible opinions about ultimate facts. 

See FRE 704(a). Realtek also argues that Mr Firoozmand's opinions

regarding prior art references are based on reliable information

(for instance, Mr Firoozmand's use of the 1994 datasheet was

reliable because, as the architect of the prior art reference in

question, Mr Firoozmand was qualified to testify that the datasheet

described the same product he invented prior to 1991).

Regarding 3Com's argument that Mr Firoozmand's opinions

were not based on the correct claim definitions, Realtek argues

that 3Com bases its argument on Mr Firoozmand's deposition

responses and that Mr Firoozmand simply didn't know what 3Com's

attorneys were talking about during his deposition. Realtek notes

that Mr Firoozmand did state that he relied on the court's claim

construction order. Realtek notes that 3Com does not allege that

Mr Firoozmand's understanding of any claim term differs from that

found in the Revised Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing

Statement.

All issues pertaining to Mr Firoozmand can be dealt with

by the parties during his trial testimony. 3Com’s motion in limine

to preclude Realtek from proffering the opinion testimony of Farzin

Firoozmand is DENIED.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 7 of 19
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

VII

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from referring to or

introducing evidence relating to patents and claims no longer

asserted. During the course of litigation, 3Com dismissed with

prejudice claims against Realtek relating to two patents (the ‘776

and ‘625 patents). See Doc ##374 and 389. In addition, 3Com has

stated that it will not argue certain claims of the ‘094 patent at

trial, but those claims have not been removed from the case by

stipulation and 3Com has not covenanted not to sue on them in the

future.

3Com argues that any reference to voluntarily withdrawn

claims could improperly lead the jury to think that 3Com's claims

are weak generally. 

Realtek argues that it has no reason to mention the ‘776

and ‘625 patents, but should not be put to any extra effort to hide

the fact that 3Com once asserted those claims. As for the ‘094

patent claims, since 3Com may assert them at any time in the

future, Realtek has the right to try its counterclaims for

declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of those

claims.

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from referring to

or introducing evidence relating to patents and claims no longer

asserted is GRANTED with respect to the dismissed ‘776 and ‘625

patent claims and DENIED with respect to the non-asserted ‘094

patent claims.

VIII

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from referring to or

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 8 of 19
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

introducing evidence relating to 3Com’s previous claim for lost

profits. 3Com argues that its originally asserted claim for lost

profits due to infringement should not be referred to during trial

because it has no probative value and may be prejudicial in that

its dismissal could lead the jury to believe 3Com's claims are weak

generally.

Realtek states that it would agree not to mention 3Com's

withdrawal of the lost profit claims if 3Com refrains from alleging

that its failure in its networking business was caused by Realtek's

infringement.

Given that lost profits are no longer claimed, it appears

that neither 3Com's withdrawal of the claim nor Realtek's status as

a low-cost provider that undercut and shrank 3Com's network

interface card business are relevant. 3Com’s motion in limine to

preclude Realtek from referring to or introducing evidence relating

to 3Com’s previous claim for lost profits is GRANTED. 

IX

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from referring to

settlement of claims between 3Com and D-Link in this and the

related action. 3Com argues that introduction of its settlement

agreements with D-Link in this and a related action would violate

FRE 408 if offered to prove non-infringement or invalidity, and

would violate FRE 403 if offered for any other reason.

Realtek argues that it only seeks to introduce the

agreement because it provides an example of a licensing agreement

probative of the reasonable royalty value of 3Com's patents that

was not included in the analysis of 3Com's damages expert.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 9 of 19
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

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from

referring to settlement of claims between 3Com and D-Link in this

and the related action is GRANTED. The jury will be directed to

disregard reference to any settlement of claims involved in this

litigation.

X

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from referring to or

introducing evidence relating to the Taiwan FTC proceeding. 3Com

argues that any reference to the Taiwan FTC proceeding, which

resulted in an approximately $75,000 fine against 3Com for

expressing to Realtek’s customers its belief that Realtek’s

products infringed 3Com’s United States patents, would be highly

prejudicial and not probative.

Realtek argues that it intends only to introduce the

findings of fact in the FTC decision, and that courts have

consistently admitted foreign official and administrative findings

as evidence for trial. Realtek does not deny that introducing the

fact that a foreign court had fined 3Com for making the same

charges it brings in this case would be highly prejudicial.

3Com’s motion in limine to preclude Realtek from

referring to or introducing evidence relating to the Taiwan FTC

proceeding is GRANTED.

XI

3Com has moved to preclude Realtek from introducing

evidence or relying on documents produced after the September 24,

2007 fact discovery deadline. 3Com argues that a number of

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 10 of 19
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

11

documents listed in Realtek's trial exhibit list were not produced

before the September 24, 2007 close of fact discovery or were

described with insufficient specificity for 3Com to determine

whether they had been produced. 3Com attempted to communicate with

Realtek counsel about these exhibits, but Realtek counsel resolved

the issues regarding only some of the documents.

Realtek responds that one of the documents targeted by

3Com's motion in limine was produced and that most of the rest are

publicly available articles that were cited in Realtek's expert

reports and are as easily available to 3Com as they are to Realtek. 

Realtek, however, does not respond to 3Com's allegations regarding

exhibits 221 and PH-01 - PH-11, which appear to be ten photographs

of Realtek products and two photographs of an "Excellence in

Design" plaque awarded to one of Realtek's witnesses. 

While there are perhaps grounds for a motion in limine as

to these eleven exhibits, it does not appear that 3Com would be

prejudiced by their use at trial (3Com has not argued that it would

be), so exclusion is not required by FRCP 37(c). 3Com’s motion in

limine to preclude Realtek from introducing evidence or relying on

documents produced after the September 24, 2007 fact discovery

deadline is DENIED.

XII

Realtek has moved to preclude 3Com from introducing

orders on summary judgment or issuing any press release concerning

same until after trial. Realtek's motion is based on its assertion

that mentioning the orders to the jury (or to the public) in any

way would unfairly prejudice it.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 11 of 19
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

This motion in limine is largely mooted by the court's

decision not to file an unsealed version of the summary judgment

orders until after trial. To the extent that Realtek is requesting

that the court's findings regarding summary judgment of

infringement not be mentioned to the jury at all, the motion in

limine is mooted by the court's decision to instruct the jury

regarding its findings of infringement of certain claims.

Realtek’s motion in limine to preclude 3Com from

introducing orders on summary judgment or issuing any press release

concerning same until after trial is DENIED AS MOOT.

XIII

Realtek has moved to preclude 3Com from offering

testimony of Andrew W Verhalen. 3Com seeks to use the testimony of

Mr Verhalen, the general manager of 3Com's Network Adapter Division

in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to corroborate the inventor's

testimony regarding the dates of conception and reduction to

practice dates of the ‘459, ‘872 and ‘094 patents and to provide

background testimony about those patents.

Realtek argues that the testimony should be excluded

because 3Com identified Mr Verhalen as a person having knowledge of

these issues on the last day of fact discovery, leaving Realtek no

time to depose him.

3Com argues that Realtek has long been on notice that Mr

Verhalen was a person with percipient knowledge concerning

conception of the inventions at issue; for example, from the June

2006 deposition testimony of inventor Paul Sherer. More

importantly, 3Com argues that the identification of Mr Verhalen at

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 12 of 19
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

13

the end of the discovery period was caused by Realtek's failure to

comply with its own discovery obligations. According to 3Com,

Realtek submitted Mr Firoozmand's invalidity reports just two weeks

before the close of fact discovery. These reports were Realtek's

first assertion of the invalidity theories that necessitated Mr

Verhalen's testimony. Finally, it appears that Realtek never

requested agreement from 3Com or leave of court to conduct a

deposition of Mr Verhalen after the close of fact discovery.

Realtek’s motion in limine to preclude 3Com from offering

testimony of Andrew W Verhalen is DENIED.

XIV

Realtek has moved to preclude certain expected testimony

of Brian Napper. Mr Napper is 3Com's damages expert.

Realtek challenges Mr Napper's calculation of the range

of numbers used to calculate the number of infringing Realtek

products imported into the United States as using unreliable

principles and methods and insufficient data, in violation of FRE

702. An estimate was necessary because Realtek does not ship

directly to the United States, but to other foreign manufacturers;

as such, it keeps no records of the ultimate destination of its

products. Realtek specifically challenges two methodologies used

by Mr Napper.

The method used by Mr Napper to calculate the lower limit

of his damages range was to look at the two commodity categories in

which the infringing products were sold, calculate the percentage

of Taiwan and Hong Kong exports in these categories that are sold

into the United States and then apply these weighted percentages to

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 13 of 19
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

14

Realtek's worldwide sales of the infringing products. 

Realtek argues that this methodology is unreliable

because it: (1) assumes that Realtek exports all of its product;

(2) double-counts Realtek products that are exported from Taiwan to

Hong Kong and then imported to the United States; (3) uses

commodities categories that include sub-categories which do not

include Realtek products.

 3Com argues that Mr Napper accounted for non-export of

some Realtek product and did not double-count product exported to

the United States through Hong Kong. It notes that at Mr Napper's

deposition, Realtek questioned Mr Napper about his use of the

broader categories, and he replied that he felt the broader

categories to be the most reliable and that he had tried the

calculation using only the sub-categories, but that this resulted

in a much higher percentage estimate of product sold into the

United States. 3Com also notes that Realtek's expert conceded that

he was aware of others using a similar approach to estimate

damages.

To derive the upper end of the range for the royalty

base, Mr Napper analyzed two license agreements for the

patents-in-suit that 3Com had negotiated with two other Taiwanese

semiconductor manufacturers. 

Realtek argues that Mr Napper had no basis for assuming

that Realtek was similar to these other manufacturers. But

Realtek’s challenge to Mr Napper’s testimony can be adequately

developed in cross-examination. Realtek’s motion in limine to 

preclude certain expected testimony of Brian Napper is DENIED.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 14 of 19
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

15

XV

Realtek has moved to preclude Dr Michael Mitzenmacher

from testifying about theories not set out in 3Com’s final

infringement contentions. Realtek's basic argument is that 3Com's

infringement expert, Dr Mitzenmacher, impermissibly changed his

opinions from 3Com's final infringement contentions (FIC) to his

expert report to his declarations in support of opposition to

summary judgment.

Specifically, Realtek argues that in the FIC, 3Com

identified the RX FIFO as the buffer element of claim 1 of the ‘884

patent. Then, in his expert report, Dr Mitzenmacher claimed that

the serial-to-parallel converter was also the buffer element, and

finally, in his declaration in support of opposition to summary

judgment of non-infringement of the ‘884 patent, Dr Mitzenmacher

claimed that the serial-to-parallel converter and RX FIFO combined

were the claimed buffer.

Realtek also argues that Dr Mitzenmacher impermissibly

added an opinion, unseen before, about the level of ordinary skill

in the art of network interface cards, and that in opposing

Realtek's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the

‘459 patent, he impermissibly offered a new opinion of the meaning

of "generating an indication signal to the host processor."

Realtek’s position regarding Dr Mitzenmacher’s testimony

can be adequately developed in cross-examination. Realtek’s motion

in limine to preclude Dr Michael Mitzenmacher from testifying about

theories not set out in 3Com’s final infringement contentions is

DENIED.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 15 of 19
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

16

XVI

Realtek has moved to preclude Dr Tim Williams from

offering opinions not previously disclosed. Realtek alleges that

Dr Williams, 3Com's validity expert, offered opinions in his

declaration in support of 3Com's opposition to summary judgment of

invalidity of the ‘459, ‘872 and ‘094 patents that he did not offer

in his expert rebuttal report or his deposition. This, Realtek

argues, is a FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) violation entitling Realtek to

exclusion of the opinions from evidence under FRCP 37(c)(1).

Specifically, Realtek argues that Dr Williams offered at

least three new opinions regarding differences between the

Firoozmand I and II and Supernet 2 chipset prior art references and

the ‘459, ‘872 and ‘094 patents.

3Com's response is that the opinions in Dr Williams's

declaration were merely expansions and more detailed restatements

of earlier stated opinions. Realtek’s motion in limine to preclude

Dr Tim Williams from offering opinions not previously disclosed is

DENIED.

XVII

Realtek has moved to preclude testimony from Annette

Davis regarding the marking of 3Com patents. Realtek argues that

Annette Davis, a former 3Com employee, is a surprise witness on

3Com's marking policies. It notes that, although Ms Davis was a

30(b)(6) witness on marketing and other general topics, Richard

Baker, 3Com's Director of IP, was the designated witness on

marking. Baker testified that he knew of no policy on marking, and

3Com only came forward with Ms Davis's testimony in response to

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 16 of 19
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

17

Realtek's motion for partial summary judgment limiting damages for

failure to notify.

3Com argues that Ms Davis is not a surprise witness

because she was identified in its initial disclosures; this

disclosure only identifies her as someone who has generally

relevant knowledge, not knowledge relevant to marking. 

Nonetheless, Ms Davis has been made available for deposition and

Realtek has deposed her. Realtek may explore the scope of her

knowledge at trial with the information Realtek was able to develop

at Ms Davis’s deposition. Realtek therefore suffers no prejudice

and Realtek’s motion in limine to preclude testimony from Annette

Davis regarding the marking of 3Com patents is DENIED.

XVIII

Realtek has moved to preclude 3Com from presenting new

evidence regarding the marking of 3Com products. This motion in

limine relates to the table of "Sales for Products for Which a

Marking Sample Has Been Located." The table was submitted as an

exhibit in support of 3Com's opposition to partial summary judgment

limiting damages. Doc #496, Exh 5.

Realtek argues that 3Com has produced no evidence of

marking within many of the families listed on the table.

3Com represents that it has produced all evidence of

marking that it intends to produce, and that no new evidence will

be produced at trial. Realtek’s motion in limine to preclude 3Com

from presenting new evidence regarding the marking of 3Com products

is DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 17 of 19
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

18

XIX

Realtek has moved to preclude labeling specifications

exhibiting marking of products not at issue. Realtek argues that

3Com produced nine labeling specifications for five families of

3Com products that were not listed in its FIC. Realtek further

argues that there is no evidence that these specifications were

ever actually followed.

3Com responds that it may have produced labeling

specifications for products not at issue, and represents that it

does not intend to use them at trial. To the extent that Realtek

objects to the introduction of label specifications generally

because there is no evidence that a label conforming to those

specifications was ever attached to a 3Com product, 3Com argues

that this is a foundational objection better dealt with at trial.

Realtek’s motion in limine to preclude labeling

specifications exhibiting marking of products not at issue is

DENIED AS MOOT.

XX

Realtek has moved to preclude the offering of or

reference to Realtek’s superseded responses to 3Com’s requests for

admission (RFAs). On January 24, 2008, the court granted Realtek's

motion to amend 16 of its RFAs. Realtek argues that its original

responses to those RFAs should be excluded as irrelevant. Realtek

argues further that even if they are relevant, the original

responses should be excluded under FRE 403 because they are

unfairly prejudicial, would mislead or confuse the jury and would

be a waste of time.

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 18 of 19
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

19

3Com argues that it does not intend to offer the original

admissions as binding admissions, but as evidence that, contrary to

expected testimony from Realtek's expert, Dr Rubin, a person of

ordinary skill in the art would understand that there is no

substantive difference between Realtek's original responses and its

amended responses. 3Com argues that this is not unfairly

prejudicial to Realtek, but a natural consequence of its own

shifting positions. The court agrees. Realtek’s motion in limine

to preclude the offering of or reference to Realtek’s superseded

responses to 3Com’s requests for admission is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 663 Filed 03/24/08 Page 19 of 19