Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01577/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01577-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WI-LAN INC.; WI-LAN USA, INC.; and 

WI-LAN LABS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG 

ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC; and LG 

ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM 

U.S.A., INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-01577-H-BGS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

[Doc. No. 162.]

On September 13, 2019, Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., 

Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. filed a motion for sanctions. (Doc. No. 

162.) On October 1, 2019, Plaintiffs Wi-LAN Inc., Wi-LAN USA, Inc., and Wi-LAN 

Labs, Inc. filed a response in opposition to LG’s motion for sanctions. (Doc. No. 197.) On 

October 1, 2019, the court took the matter under submission. (Doc. No. 200.) On October 

8, 2019, LG filed its reply. (Doc. No. 225.) For the reasons below, the Court denies LG’s 

motion for sanctions. 

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

Background

On July 11, 2018, Wi-LAN filed a complaint for patent infringement against LG, 

alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,924, 8,867,351, 9,226,320, and 9,497,743. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Specifically, Wi-LAN alleges that LG’s wireless communication products 

that are compliant with the 3rd Generation Partnership Project 4G LTE standard directly 

infringe the patents-in-suit. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 40, 53, 66, 79.)

On October 10, 2018, LG filed an answer to Wi-LAN’s complaint along with

counterclaims for: (1) declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the 

patents-in-suit; (2) declaratory judgment of unenforceability for failure to disclose to 

standard setting organizations; (3) declaratory judgment of unenforceability of the ’351 

patent; (4) declaratory judgment that LG is entitled to license the patents-in-suit on 

FRAND/RAND terms and conditions; (5) breach of contract; (6) monopolization and 

attempted monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act; and (7) unfair 

business practices under California Business and Profession Code § 17200 et seq. (Doc. 

No. 17.) On April 12, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Wi-LAN’s motions 

to dismiss LG’s counterclaims, and the Court dismissed LG’s counterclaim for a 

declaratory judgment of unenforceability of the ’351 patent due to infectious 

unenforceability with prejudice. (Doc. No. 79.) 

Mr. Sheldon Gilbert is one of the named inventors of the ’924 patent and the ’743 

patent. See U.S. Patent No. 8,787,924 (filed Jul. 22, 2014); U.S. Patent No. 9,497,743

(filed Nov. 15, 2016). Mr. Gilbert is also one of the founders of Ensemble Communications 

Inc., the prior owner of the patents-in-suit. (Doc. No. 211, Ex. A at 14-15.) On May 10, 

1999, Mr. Gilbert assigned all of his rights to the ’518 application and all continuations 

thereof, which would include the ’924 patent and the ’743 patent, to Ensemble. (Doc. No. 

162-2, Ex. 1.) 

On March 13, 2019, LG subpoenaed Mr. Gilbert to testify at a deposition in this 

action. (Doc. No. 162-5, Ex. 4.) Mr. Gilbert’s deposition took place on August 29, 2019 

in Palo Alto, California. (Doc. No. 211, Ex. A.) Mr. Gilbert attended the deposition 

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

unrepresented by counsel. (Id. at 47.) During, Mr. Gilbert’s deposition, the follow

exchanges occurred:

[THE WITNESS:] A. You know, I want to -- all right. I want to 

interrupt the deposition for a minute if I could. So Wi-LAN counsel 

mentioned something to me during a break that I may be accused of

wrongdoing in this case; is that correct?

[MS. SAND FOR LG:] Q. All right. So you spoke with Wi-LAN’s

counsel during the break?

A. He spoke to me in the bathroom, yes

Q. And what did he say to you?

A. He said that I might be accused of fraud in this case.

MR. ENGER [FOR WI-LAN]: That’s correct. LG has accused you of 

fraud in this case.

(Reporter clarification.)

MR. ENGER: LG has accused you of fraud in this case.

BY MS. SAND:

Q. Did he tell you anything more about this?

A. No.

Q. Did he give you any specifics about it?

A. No.

Q. What did you say in response to him?

A. “Thank you for letting me know.”

Q. Okay.

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

A. Is that -- is that correct? Am I being accused of something in this 

case?

MS. SAND: Can we go off record for a bit?

MR. ENGER: Sure.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off record at 11:17 a.m.

(Off the record discussion.)

(Recess.)

(Off record: 11:17 a.m.)

(On record: 12:06 p.m.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On record at 12:06 p.m.

BY MS. SAND:

Q. All right. Now, during our previous break, Wi-LAN’s counsel talked 

to you during the break, I understand, and told you that you’re being accused 

of fraud?

A. Right.

Q. Wi-LAN is not representing you in this case. You’re appearing here 

today pursuant to a subpoena, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. All right. Now, we went off the record and talked for a bit, and it’s 

LG’s position that we are not personally accusing you of fraud in the case.

A. Okay.

Q. You don’t have counsel right now?

A. That’s correct.

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

Q. Wi-LAN’s counsel is not representing you. We talked about it for a 

bit. And you’re comfortable answering questions about the inventorship of the 

patents and these lab notebooks, but we will stay away from any questions 

about standard setting organizations and leave the deposition open so that you 

can get counsel if we decide to talk about those issues, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. ENGER: To be clear, Wi-LAN’s position is we’re not agreeing 

that the deposition will be kept open. I understand that may be an

agree/disagree point.

THE WITNESS: Anything else Wi-LAN, I mean --

MR. ENGER: As we’ve discussed on the record and off the record, LG 

is accusing you and your company Ensemble of doing fraudulent things with 

respect to standard setting organizations.

LG is also accusing your patents as being invalid because they should 

have never issued in the first place. Those are just things that you ought to 

know whenever you are testifying. That’s all I have to say.

THE WITNESS: Right. And you both agree I’m not personally a party 

to this dispute currently?

MS. SAND: Correct.

MR. ENGER: Yes. It’s not – it’s Wi-LAN’s position you are not 

personally a party to this lawsuit.

MS. SAND: And it’s LG’s position that not only are you not a party 

right now, we’re not adding you as a party to the lawsuit.

THE WITNESS: Is that also Wi-LAN’s position?

MR. ENGER: I don’t believe Wi-LAN has any intention of adding you 

as a party to this lawsuit.

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

THE WITNESS: Okay. In that situation, then I'm willing to continue 

with the deposition as you had indicated.

BY MS. SAND:

Q. All right.

(Id. at 45-49.)

[BY MS. SAND:] Q. Just a few more questions. Now, Mr. Gilbert, you 

spoke with Wi-LAN’s counsel during the breaks today, correct?

[THE WITNESS:] A. Yes.

Q. And LG’s counsel was not present for all those conversations, 

correct?

A. It would have been awkward since many of them happened in the 

men’s room, but, yes, that’s correct.

Q. And Wi-LAN’s counsel is not representing you in the case?

A. They’re not.

Q. And during one of those conversations, Wi-LAN’s counsel told you, 

you were being accused of fraud, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And LG’s counsel was not present at this time, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And as a result of that conversation you came back and indicated 

you didn’t want to testify regarding any FRAND or standard-setting 

organization topics as a result of the conversation with Wi-LAN’s attorney, 

correct?

A. No, that’s not correct.

Q. Are you willing to testify regarding those topics?

A. I think I would not like to, at least without counsel. But what I came 

back and said is that I was concerned that maybe I needed counsel if I was a 

party to the patent, and then you suggested that you wouldn’t cover those 

topics if that made me feel better, and I said it did.

Q. Okay. So as a result of the conversation with Wi-LAN’s attorney, 

you said you were not comfortable covering those topics without having your 

own counsel to represent you, correct?

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

A. Basically that’s what happened, yes.

Q. All right. I’m going to leave the deposition open regarding those 

topics if you’ve indicated you’d like to have counsel representing you before 

you talk about the FRAND and standard-setting organization topics.

(Id. at 81-82.) 

[BY MR. ENGER:] Q. So you agreed to meet with LG’s attorneys but 

declined to meet with Wi-LAN’s attorneys. Fair?

[THE WITNESS:] A. Well, those are both true statements.

Q. Are you being compensated by LG in any way?

A. Just to clarify, the -- the motivation for the meeting with LG was 

they said they wanted to know whether they need to depose me; so I agreed 

to have that questioning in lieu of a deposition.

The emails I received from Wi-LAN suggested they wanted to 

represent me and wanted to talk about representing me. And I thought it --

number one, I didn't need a counsel since I wasn’t a party to this litigation; 

and, number two, I didn’t think it was prudent to have one of the parties of

litigation actually representing me.

And so I declined to have the meeting with Wi-LAN because it was 

about whether they wanted to represent me, and I already told them that I 

didn’t think I needed representation. And I had the meeting with LG because 

they told me they wanted to know whether they needed to depose me or not.

Q. At any point during those meetings with LG or any written 

correspondence, did LG ever tell you that they believed your patents were 

invalid?

A. No.

Q. At any point during those meetings with LG or any written 

correspondence, did they tell you that they believed that you and your 

colleagues at Ensemble had committed fraud on various standard setting 

organizations?

A. No

(Id. at 89-90.) By the present motion, LG moves for sanctions against Wi-LAN and its 

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Court’s inherent powers, and Civil Local Rule 

83.4(b) based on Wi-LAN’s counsel’s conduct during Mr. Gilbert’s deposition. (Doc. No. 

162-1 at 1, 8-15.)

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

Discussion

I. Legal Standards

A. Inherent Powers

A district court has “inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad faith, which 

includes a broad range of willful improper conduct.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 

(9th Cir. 2001); see Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). Before a court may 

award sanctions under its inherent powers, “the court must make an explicit finding that 

counsel’s conduct ‘constituted or was tantamount to bad faith.’” Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., 

Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 

447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980)); accord AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 769 F.3d 1323, 1329 

(Fed. Cir. 2014).

“A finding of bad faith is warranted where an attorney ‘knowingly or recklessly 

raises a frivolous argument, or argues a meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an 

opponent.’” Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., 115 F.3d at 649 (quoting In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., 

Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1996)). “‘Mere recklessness does not alone 

constitute bad faith; rather, an award of attorney’s fees is justified when reckless conduct 

is combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper 

purpose.’” Ibrahim v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 912 F.3d 1147, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 

2019) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 542 F.3d 704, 709 (9th Cir. 2008)). “A party 

also demonstrates bad faith by ‘delaying or disrupting the litigation or hampering 

enforcement of a court order.’” Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., 115 F.3d at 649 (quoting Hutto 

v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 689 n.14 (1978)).

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[t]he bad faith requirement sets a high 

threshold.” Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., 115 F.3d at 649. “Because inherent powers are 

shielded from direct democratic controls, they must be exercised with restraint and 

discretion.” Roadway Express, 447 U.S. at 764.

B. 28 U.S.C. § 1927

Section 1927 provides: “Any attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any 

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the 

excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1927. Section 1927 sanctions must be supported by a finding of bad faith or 

recklessness. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002), as 

amended (Feb. 20, 2002); Fink, 239 F.3d at 993.

C. Civil Local Rule 83.4(b)

Civil Local Rule 83.4(b) provides: “No attorney permitted to practice before this

court will engage in any conduct which degrades or impugns the integrity of the court or 

in any manner interferes with the administration of justice within the Court.”

D. California Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1

California Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1 provides: “In the course of representing 

a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to 

a third person . . . .”

II. Analysis

LG’s motions for sanctions is based on its contention that Wi-LAN’s counsel 

engaged in false and misleading conduct with respect to Mr. Gilbert during his deposition. 

(Doc. No. 162-1 at 8-14.) Specifically, LG contends that during the deposition, Wi-LAN’s 

counsel made the knowingly false and misleading statement that LG has personally 

accused Mr. Gilbert of fraud in this case. (Id. at 8-9.) In response, Wi-LAN argues that its 

counsel’s statements during the deposition were entirely truthful and were not made for 

any improper purpose. (Doc. No. 197 at 2.) 

During Mr. Gilbert’s deposition, Wi-LAN’s counsel stated: “LG has accused you of 

fraud in this case;” and “LG is accusing you and your company Ensemble of doing 

fraudulent things with respect to standard setting organizations.” (Doc. No. 211 Ex. A at 

46, 48.) In its answer and counterclaim, LG alleges:

188. IPWireless, Wi-LAN, Wi-LAN’s predecessors-in-interest Ensemble,

Nextwave, and SOMA, and/or one or more of the inventors of the Patents-inSuit, were or are a member of a SSO involved with the setting of a standard 

(or standards) that WiLAN asserts, or has asserted, is necessarily covered by 

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

one or more claims of the Patentsin-Suit. IPWireless, Wi-LAN, Wi-LAN’s 

predecessors-in-interest Ensemble, Nextwave, and SOMA, and/or one or 

more of the inventors of the Patents-in-Suit participated in the setting of such 

standard (or standards). Despite this participation, the Patents-in-Suit, and the 

patents and applications that led to the Patents-in-Suit, including any priority 

patents and/or applications, were never disclosed to the applicable SSOs. 

Accordingly, the standards that Wi-LAN asserts, or has asserted, are 

necessarily covered by one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit were set 

without consideration of the Patents-in-Suit, or the patents and applications 

that led to the Patents-in-Suit. IPWireless, Wi-LAN, Wi-LAN’s predecessorsin-interest Ensemble, Nextwave, and SOMA, and/or one or more of the

inventors of the Patents-in-Suit knowingly and in bad faith failed to disclose 

the Patents-in-Suit and the patents and applications that led to the Patents-inSuit with the intent to deceive and to induce reliance. The foregoing actions 

and conduct have caused damage and continue to cause damage to LG and 

relevant third parties.

189. As a result of the conduct described above, the ‘924 patent, the ‘743 

patent, and the ‘320 patent are unenforceable against LG on the grounds of 

estoppel, fraud, waiver, implied waiver, unclean hands, patent exhaustion, 

implied license, and/or other equitable defenses.

(Doc. No. 17 ¶¶ 188, 189; see also id. ¶¶ 113, 114, 160-67.) Here, LG alleges that that 

“one or more of the inventors of the Patents-in-Suit[, which could include Mr. Gilbert,]

knowingly and in bad faith failed to disclose the Patents-in-Suit and the patents and 

applications that led to the Patents-in-Suit with the intent to deceive and to induce reliance.” 

(Id. ¶ 188.) LG further alleges that as a result of that alleged conduct, the patents-in-suit 

are unenforceable due to, among other things, “fraud.” (Id. ¶ 189.)

In light of these allegations, the Court declines to find that Wi-LAN’s counsel’s 

statements during Mr. Gilbert’s deposition were false or misleading.1

 In response, LG 

argues that it never alleged that Mr. Gilbert personally-by name-committed fraud. (Doc. 

No. 225 at 2.) The Court recognizes that LG’s reference to “one or more of the inventors 

 

1 Further, in light of these allegations, the Court agrees with Wi-LAN that it is perplexing that LG 

would assert in its motion that: “LG’s counterclaims are unrelated to the named inventors;” and “LG’s 

counterclaims also do not allege that Mr. Gilbert’s prior employer Ensemble committed any fraud.” (Doc. 

No. 162-1 at 5, 6.)

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 11
11

18-cv-01577-H-BGS

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

of the Patents-in-Suit” in its allegations could potentially refer to named inventors other 

than Mr. Gilbert. But if these allegations were meant to not include Mr. Gilbert, that clarity 

is not contained in the allegations in LG’s answer and counterclaims. And LG has not 

identified any document in record that would have provided that additional clarity prior to 

Mr. Gilbert’s deposition. To the contrary, in a subsequent filing, LG asserts that “each of 

the Named Inventors” participated in the relevant standard-setting process. (Doc. No. 217 

at 10.) Further, LG characterizes these allegations as “‘catch-all’ paragraphs.” (Doc. No. 

225 at 2.)

The Court acknowledge that LG’s answer and counterclaims do not include a claim 

for fraud against Mr. Gilbert personally. (See generally Doc. No. 32) But Wi-LAN’s 

counsel never asserted that LG was bringing a cause of action for fraud against Mr. Gilbert. 

Indeed, during the deposition, both Wi-Lan’s counsel and LG’s counsel clarified on the 

record to Mr. Gilbert that he is not a party in this lawsuit. (Doc. No. 211, Ex. A at 48-49.)) 

Nevertheless, LG’s answer and counterclaims include allegations of fraudulent conduct 

committed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit, which would include Mr. Gilbert. (See

Doc. No. 17 ¶¶ 188, 189.) As a result, the Court declines to find that Wi-LAN’s counsel’s 

statements during the deposition were false or misleading, and the Court denies LG’s 

motion for sanctions.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court denies LG’s motion for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-01577-H-AGS Document 230 Filed 10/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 11