Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03586/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03586-16/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GOMEZ

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (A 

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION), et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION 

OF MIGUEL GOMEZ

(Re: Docket No. 124)

Plaintiffs VIA Technologies, Inc. and several related and similarly named companies 

allege that Defendants ASUS Computer International and its corporate siblings infringe several 

VIA patents.1 The presiding judge has scheduled a claim construction tutorial for May 26 and a

claim construction hearing for June 10.2 Along with its opening claim construction brief, VIA 

submitted a declaration by VIA’s technical expert, Miguel Gomez, containing his opinions on the 

background of the technology and how the claims should be construed.3 Defendants now move to 

strike large portions of that declaration on the grounds that VIA failed to disclose the opinions in 

those paragraphs as required by the Patent Local Rules of this district.4 The motion is 

GRANTED-IN-PART.

 

1

See Docket No. 70 at ¶¶ 7-18, 54-75.

2

See Docket No. 128.

3

See Docket No. 116-16.

4

See Docket No. 124.

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 158 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GOMEZ

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

Northern District of California

I.

A party intending to support its claim construction positions with testimony from an expert 

first must “provide a description of the substance of that witness’ proposed testimony that includes 

a listing of any opinions to be rendered in connection with claim construction.”5 The party should 

hand over this description when the parties exchange their preliminary claim constructions.

6

 

Another rule directs each party to “identif[y] any extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it 

intends to rely either to support its proposed construction or to oppose any other party’s proposed 

construction, including . . . testimony of percipient and expert witnesses.”7 That identification 

must be contained within a joint claim construction and prehearing statement.8 Claim construction 

discovery, “including any depositions with respect to claim construction of any witnesses, 

including experts,” must be completed no more than 30 days after the parties file their joint claim 

construction and prehearing statement.9

In this case, VIA included with its preliminary claim constructions high-level

“[d]escription[s] of the substance of anticipated testimony of Miguel Gomez.”

10

 For example, for 

the first disputed claim term, VIA provided this description of Gomez’ proposed testimony:

The term recites sufficiently definite structure to a person of 

ordinary skill. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the 

term has a generally understood plain and ordinary structural

meaning, or, in general, means a module that converts parallel data 

into serial data and delayed serial data. A person of ordinary skill 

would find that the intrinsic record confirms that understanding. A 

person of ordinary skill would not view the term as a purely

functional term. And a person of ordinary skill would understand, 

based on the claim language and intrinsic record, the scope of the 

term with reasonable certainty. A person of ordinary skill would 

 

5

Pat. L.R. 4-2(b).

6

See id.

7

Pat. L.R. 4-3(b).

8

See Pat. L.R. 4-3.

9

Pat. L.R. 4-4.

10 Docket No. 124-2, Ex. A at 2-16.

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 158 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GOMEZ

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

Northern District of California

conclude that the extrinsic record confirms this understanding of the 

term.11

VIA did not indicate that Gomez intended to testify to the background of the technology. The 

joint claim construction statement included the following summary of his expected testimony:

Mr. Gomez may provide opinions regarding the disputed claim 

terms, the definition and qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the 

art, the state of relevant technology at the time the patents were 

filed, and rebuttal opinions to constructions offered by the 

Defendants or any expert on which the Defendants may rely.12

A more detailed listing of his opinions followed, using largely the same language from VIA’s 

preliminary contentions.

13

 This time, VIA did say that Gomez “[wa]s expected to testify regarding 

. . . [a]n overview of the technology disclosed the [sic] asserted patents (including the background 

and context of the technology).”

14

Defendants then deposed Gomez during claim construction discovery. Gomez testified

that he did not “have a final declaration of any sort” yet, but that he had “been told that [he] may 

be working on one.”

15 After claim construction discovery closed, Gomez delivered that 

declaration, which VIA attached to its opening claim construction briefing.

16

 The declaration 

contained 36 paragraphs of Gomez’ opinions on the technical background as well as his opinions 

on certain disputed claim terms.17 Defendants filed this motion a month later.18

 

11 Id. at 2.

12 Docket No. 109 at 7.

13 See id. at 7-12.

14 Id. at 7.

15 Docket No. 124-5 at 139:9-18. In the same vein, he also told Defendants that he had not yet 

“been asked to render an opinion on any of the subject matter at this point.” Id. at 20:22-21:5, see 

also id. at 11:25-12:8, 78:24-79:4, 86:21-87:6, 89:4-13, 96:2-6, 187:15-21.

16 See Docket No. 116-16.

17 See id. at ¶¶ 44-78, 82, 85, 99, 103, 104.1, 104.2.

18 See Docket No. 124.

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 158 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GOMEZ

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

Northern District of California

II.

The Patent Local Rules set up a straightforward process for parties to disclose expert 

opinions they intend to rely on during claim construction. At the outset, a party planning to call an 

expert must “provide a description of the substance of [the expert’s] proposed testimony.”

19

 In 

particular, that description must “include[] a listing of any opinions to be rendered in connection 

with claim construction.”

20

 And, in the joint claim construction and prehearing statement, the 

party must identify that the expert’s testimony is among the extrinsic evidence on which the party 

will rely.21 If the party additionally proposes to call the expert witness to testify live at the 

hearing, it must include in the joint claim construction and prehearing statement “a summary of 

[the expert’s] testimony including . . . each opinion to be offered related to claim construction.”

22

 

Claim construction discovery commences thereafter.23

For this sequence of events to make any sense, the expert opinions disclosed must enable 

useful discovery about those opinions. To be sure, the Patent Local Rules have been amended to 

remove a requirement that the “summary of each opinion to be offered” be disclosed “in sufficient 

detail to permit a meaningful deposition of that expert.”

24

 But that amendment preserved the 

 

19 Pat. L.R. 4-2(b).

20 Id.

21 See Pat. L.R. 4-3(b). If the party “proposes to call one or more [expert] witnesses at the Claim 

Construction Hearing,” the party must include in the joint claim construction and prehearing 

statement “a summary of [the expert’s] testimony including . . . each opinion to be offered related 

to claim construction.” Pat. L.R. 4-3(e). Taking the Rule’s plain language at face value, it only 

applies to witnesses who will testify live at the claim construction hearing. But see HTC Corp. v. 

Tech. Props. Ltd., Case No. 08-cv-00882, 2010 WL 4973628, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010); 

Friskit, Inc. v. RealNetworks, Inc., Case No. 03-cv-05085, 2005 WL 6249309, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 22, 2005). Because VIA does not intend to call Gomez to testify at the hearing, this 

subsection does not apply.

22 Pat. L.R. 4-3(e).

23 See Pat. L.R. 4-4.

24 Friskit, 2005 WL 6249309, at *1; see Reflex Packaging, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 

10-cv-01002, 2011 WL 7295479, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011).

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 158 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GOMEZ

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

Northern District of California

disclosure requirement. Even if “a less detailed description is permissible” under the amended 

Rule,25 that description cannot merely be a list of topics without “a listing of [the] opinions”

themselves.26

Against this standard, VIA’s disclosure was insufficient. For example, with respect to the

first disputed claim term, VIA simply told Defendants that Gomez would testify that “a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would understand . . . the scope of the term with reasonable certainty” and 

interpret “parallel-to-serial unit” to mean “a module that converts parallel data into serial data and 

delayed serial data.”

27

 In his declaration, however, Gomez explained for the first time how the 

unit might be implemented and why the term “unit” would not confuse a POSITA.

28

 Without this 

explanation, Defendants had no guidance on how to conduct a useful deposition; by the time they 

received it, the window for discovery had long since closed. And, of course, VIA’s initial 

disclosure made no mention of the fact that Gomez intended to offer pages of opinions on the

background of the technology.29

All that said, striking testimony altogether is the court’s last resort.

30

 Instead, given the 

relative banality of the opinions at issue and the weeks remaining until the claim construction 

hearing, a more appropriate remedy would be a further opportunity for Defendants to explore the 

opinions that Gomez did not disclose in advance. Accordingly, VIA shall make Gomez available 

for three hours of additional deposition by May 27, 2016. To the extent this deposition 

necessitates additional claim construction briefing, the parties should seek the presiding judge’s 

leave to file any supplemental briefs.

 

25 Reflex Packaging, 2011 WL 7295479, at *2.

26 Pat. L.R. 4-2(b).

27 Docket No. 124-2, Ex. A at 2.

28 Docket No. 116-16 at ¶¶ 82, 85.

29 See Docket No. 124-2, Ex. A; Docket No. 116-16 at ¶¶ 44-78.

30 See Reflex Packaging, 2011 WL 7295479, at *1 (citations omitted).

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 158 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 14-cv-03586-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF MIGUEL GOMEZ

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

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03586-BLF Document 158 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 6