IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MEDIATEK, INC. 

MEDIATEK USA, INC., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil No. 2:23-cv-00129 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE 

DOCUMENTS AND COMPLETE INTERROGATORY RESPONSES 

PUBLIC VERSION OF ECF 116

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:

2476
1 

Over a year ago, on August 4, 2023, this Court entered a Discovery Order, which provides

in pertinent part that “without awaiting a discovery request, each party will [...] produce or permit 

the inspection of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things in the 

possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses

involved in this action [...].” See ECF No. 31 at § 3(b). As explained in other motions (e.g., ECF 

No. 97), MediaTek waited until August 1, 2024 to produce 80% of its document production—a 

production for which it has characterized the relevance as “dubious at best” (ECF No. 108 at 1). 

Now MediaTek relies on the sheer volume of its “dubious” production to justify withholding of 

highly relevant documents. For example, MediaTek’s deficient production relating to damages led 

MOSAID to scour publicly available records, including PACER filings in other cases, to identify 

highly relevant and unproduced documents. MOSAID also served numerous third-party 

subpoenas, only to discover more unproduced documents that have been within MediaTek’s 

possession, custody, and control the entire time. While MediaTek has recently scrambled to 

produce some of this information, it still appears that many documents remain unproduced. And 

given today’s deadline for filing a motion to compel, MOSAID moves to compel this information.1

 

On July 19, 2024, MOSAID notified MediaTek of significant deficiencies in its discovery 

responses. See Ex. 1 (Excerpt from M. Jones to J. Colaianni, at 1-2 (Jul. 19, 2024)). MOSAID’s 

counsel followed up with emails providing examples of specific deficiencies identified through 

publicly available PACER searches, including a redacted 2018 Annual Plan and Forecast, and 

conferred with opposing counsel about missing documents and deficient interrogatory responses 

on August 1. On September 3, 2024, counsel for MOSAID e-mailed MediaTek’s counsel, 

1

 Given MediaTek’s continued and belated production of these relevant documents, MOSAID hopes that MediaTek 

ultimately moots many of the issues presented in this Motion. But as of the filing of this Motion (on the final day to 

file motions to compel), numerous documents appear to remain missing. 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:

2477
2 

identifying still-missing documents. Counsel for MediaTek stated in response that MediaTek 

would provide responsive documents in their possession or would “look into” the request. 

Following the parties’ lead and local meet and confer on September 4, 2024, the following 

categories of responsive documents remain unproduced: 

 MediaTek’s actual, estimated, and forecasted market share in the United States; 

 All analyst reports, internal presentations discussing the same, and bi-weekly TV 

business unit documentation; 

 Sealed portions of the trial transcripts, deposition transcript(s) of its damages expert, 

and MediaTek’s damages expert report related to its valuation of its a potentially 

comparable power management patent in the Freescale litigation; 

 All reports, invoices, and documentation in connection with the now-produced market 

development fund agreements (“MDFs”); 

 Documents similar to the “2018 Annual Plan Schedule and Process” or other 

documents showing MediaTek’s North American or United States market share; and 

 The identified on 

RPG_3P_00256 at -258. 

Each of the documents requested by MOSAID is relevant to the issues of infringement or damages 

in this action. Many of MediaTek’s interrogatory responses remain deficient as well. While 

MediaTek has promised to supplement these responses on the last day of discovery, MOSAID 

seeks an order compelling such responses if they remain deficient after MediaTek’s promised 

supplementation. 

First, MOSAID seeks to compel the production of reports related to MediaTek’s U.S. or 

North American market share, internal presentations that include discussion of such market share 

and any forecasts of such market share for any of the relevant product segments and/or for 

MediaTek SoCs generally across product segments. MediaTek recently produced 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:

2478
3 

 But MediaTek has not produced similar analyses or calculations of its U.S./North 

American market share (i.e., its analysis and calculations of market share based on 

) and presentations including that analysis. Given that 

MediaTek has taken the position that it does not track how many of its SoCs are imported and/or 

sold by third party OEM’s consumer electronics in the United States, these documents are highly 

relevant, as they would allow MOSAID to translate MediaTek’s own global sales into a reasonable 

estimation of the number of OEM products including a MediaTek SoC that are sold in the U.S. 

Second, MOSAID seeks production of all analyst reports, internal presentations discussing 

such analyst reports, and all bi-weekly TV business unit reports for a similar reason. These 

documents reflect market share analysis that is relevant to MOSAID’s damages analysis. While 

MediaTek has produced some bi-weekly TV reports, numerous bi-weekly reports are missing from 

the production. MediaTek’s witnesses have testified that 

. 

Accordingly, MOSAID requests that MediaTek be compelled to produce all such responsive 

documents from 2017 to present. 

Third, MOSAID seeks unredacted trial transcripts and litigation materials that describe 

valuations MediaTek performed of comparable technologies and patents. For example, MediaTek 

introduced evidence regarding the value of its own power management patent in a patent trial 

against Freescale. While MOSAID has obtained and produced the publicly available portions of 

the trial transcript, other portions are not publicly available. MOSAID requested MediaTek 

produce narrowly tailored documentation including its damages expert’s report and exhibits and 

the sealed portion of the trial testimony together with cited exhibits. The publicly available portion 

of the trial transcript reveals that MediaTek contended a 10% royalty rate was reasonable for its 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:

2479
4 

own power management technology. MediaTek has refused to produce the requested documents, 

alleging that the documents are not within its possession or custody, but has thus far refused to 

contact its counsel (whom it controls) to obtain the information.2

 Given the upcoming deadlines 

for expert reports, MOSAID requests that MediaTek be compelled to produce such documents. 

Fourth, MOSAID seeks invoices, reports, and any other documents related to its MDFs 

and any additional MDFs with any OEM that sells products in the U.S. Through other publicly 

available trial transcripts, MOSAID identified the existence of MediaTek’s MDFs with third party 

who sell products in the U.S. OEMS (e.g., Sony, LGE, Amazon, and Vizio). While MediaTek has 

now produced those MDFs, MediaTek has not produced documents relating to those agreement. 

For example, on their face, the MDFs also refer to invoices and reports, and payments are tied to 

OEM consumer devices containing MediaTek SoCs (likely sold in the United States), and thus are 

directly relevant to damages in this case as well as to MediaTek’s inducement of third-party OEMs. 

Further, the same transcript refers to additional MDF agreement(s) with at least Motorola that 

MediaTek has not yet produced. MOSAID requests that MediaTek be compelled to produce such 

these highly relevant materials. 

Fifth, MOSAID seeks MediaTek forecasts and market share analysis for each accused 

product segment (smartphones, tablets, Chromebooks, IoT/wearables, and digital TVs) for the 

North American/US markets for 2016 to present. After MOSAID identified MediaTek’s redacted 

“2018 Annual Plan Schedule and Process” through filings in other cases,3

 MediaTek finally 

produced an unredacted version of that particular document, 

2

 MOSAID also served a subpoena duces tecum on third party WilmerHale seeking these documents, but WilmerHale 

has not yet served objections or responses, or indicated whether it will produce the requested documents. 

3

 MediaTek has claimed throughout this case that is unaware of how many of the Accused Products are eventually 

imported into, and sold in the United States. These documents contradict MediaTek’s claims. 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:

2480
5 

. MediaTek also provided limited documents relating to 

analyses of the total addressable market and MediaTek’s market share for North America. 

MTK_MOSAID_02250016. But MediaTek has not produced studies for other years or for 

products beyond the smartphone product segment, which certainly must exist. Accordingly, 

MOSAID requests that MediaTek be compelled to produce similar documents for other years and 

other relevant product segments (e.g., tablets, Chromebooks, IoT, and TVs). 

Sixth, MOSAID seeks unproduced information regarding MediaTek’s purchase of OEM 

products in the United States containing the Accused Instrumentalities. MOSAID subpoenaed 

MediaTek’s PR firm, Racepoint Global (“RPG”) for documents relevant to damages. RPG’s 

production of documents includes 

 RPG_3P_00256 at -258. Moreover, RPG’s production revealed that MediaTek 

purchases third party OEM products containing MediaTek SoCs in the U.S., for a variety of 

purposes including for demonstrations. Thus, the referenced-but-unproduced “demo requirement 

spreadsheets” appears that it would list the purchased OEM products, establishing that MediaTek 

is directly aware of third-party sales in the U.S. of OEM devices containing MediaTek SoCs and 

aiding the identification of such OEM products. Accordingly, rather than seeking to compel RPG 

to produce these documents that are in MediaTek’s possession, custody and control, MOSAID 

requests that MediaTek be compelled to produce these documents. 

Finally, MOSAID seeks to compel complete responses to its interrogatories, including 

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 10, 21, and 23. Recently, MediaTek identified 89 new SoCs in response to 

interrogatory 12; MOSAID requests supplementation of the response to No. 1 as it relates to these 

newly-identified SoCs. MOSAID requests supplementation of the response to No. 10 to identify 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:

2481
6 

the OEM products containing a MediaTek SoC that MediaTek has purchased in the U.S. for any 

reason, directly or indirectly. With regard to No. 21, MOSAID requests supplementation in 

connection with MediaTek’s efforts to identify its U.S. market share, as reflected in recently 

produced documents. Finally, in connection with No. 23, MOSAID requests supplementation to 

identify which (if any) specific third-party OEM products MediaTek contends should be excluded 

from the damages royalty base. While MediaTek has agreed to do so weeks ago, supplementation 

still has not occurred. 

CONCLUSION 

The deadline for filing motions to compel has arrived and fact discovery closes today. 

MOSAID cannot wait any longer for MediaTek to complete its investigation and provide long 

overdue productions and responses.4

 MediaTek’s choice to hamper the discovery process 

continues to prejudice MOSAID’s preparation of the case for trial and hinders efficiency. 

Accordingly, MOSAID respectfully requests the Court compel MediaTek to provide the 

information and document MOSAID requests. 

4

 MediaTek continues to produce documents as of the filing of this motion. To the extent that any of these productions 

resolve the disputes identified in this motion, MOSAID will notify the Court promptly. 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:

2482
7 

Dated: September 5, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Miranda Y. Jones 

Jamie H. McDole 

 LEAD COUNSEL 

 State Bar No. 24082049 

Phillip B. Philbin 

 State Bar No. 15909020 

Michael D. Karson 

 State Bar No. 24090198 

David W. Higer 

 State Bar No. 24127850 

Miranda Y. Jones 

 State Bar No. 24065519 

Grant Tucker 

 State Bar No. 24121422 

Matthew L. Vitale 

 State Bar No. 24137699 

WINSTEAD PC 

2728 N. Harwood Street 

Suite 500 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Tel.: (214) 745-5400 

Fax: (214) 745-5390 

Email: jmcdole@winstead.com 

 pphilbin@winstead.com 

 mkarson@winstead.com 

 dhiger@winstead.com 

 mjones@winstead.com 

 gtucker@winstead.com 

 mvitale@winstead.com 

Austin C. Teng 

 State Bar No. 24093247 

Nadia E. Haghighatian 

 State Bar No. 24087652 

WINSTEAD PC 

600 W. 5th Street 

Suite 900 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Tel.: (512) 370-2800 

Fax: (512) 370-2850 

Email: ateng@winstead.com 

 nhaghighatian@winstead.com 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:

2483
8 

Charles Everingham IV 

 State Bar No. 00787447 

Andrea L. Fair 

 State Bar No. 24078488 

WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC 

1507 Bill Owens Parkway 

Longview, Texas 75604 

Tel: (903) 757-6400 

Fax: (903) 757-2323 

Email: ce@wsfirm.com

andrea@wsfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MOSAID Technologies Inc. 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:

2484
Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID

#: 2485
10 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that, on September 4, 2024, counsel for MOSAID and counsel for 

MediaTek met and conferred regarding the issues raised in this Motion to Compel. MOSAID was 

represented on the meet and confer call by Jamie H. McDole, Michael D. Karson, Miranda Y. 

Jones, and Charles Everingham IV. MediaTek was represented on the meet and confer call by 

Ruffin Cordell, Joseph V. Colaianni, Jared Hartzman, and Andrew T. “Tom” Gorham. During the 

meet and confer call, counsel for MediaTek could not, or would not, agree to the existence of 

and/or commit to produce the documents requested herein. In addition, while MediaTek 

represented that it would provide supplemental interrogatory response, MediaTek has not provided 

the supplement as of the filing of this motion. Accordingly, the parties are at an impasse and the 

Motion to Compel is submitted to the Court for determination. Counsel have complied with the 

meet and confer requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h). This motion is opposed. 

/s/ Miranda Y. Jones 

 Miranda Y. Jones 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID

#: 2486
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID

#: 2487
2728 N. Harwood Street 

Suite 500 

Dallas, TX 75201

Miranda Jones

direct dial: 214-745-5755

214.745.5400 OFFICE

214.745.5390 FAX

winstead.com 

Via E-mail 

Joseph Colaianni 

Fish & Richardson 

1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

colaianni@fr.com

Re: MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. MediaTek, Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) 

Dear Mr. Colaianni, 

I write to raise several serious concerns about the current status of Defendants MediaTek, 

Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.’s (collectively “MediaTek”) document production and discovery 

responses in this matter, including MediaTek’s deficient responses to MOSAID’s interrogatories 

and deficiencies in MediaTek’s document production to date. In fact, despite alleged compliance 

with the “substantially complete” production deadline over a month ago, our review of MediaTek’s 

document production to date reveals several categories of relevant documents that are still missing. 

These categories of documents are identified below in Section A of my letter. 

 The close of fact discovery is fast approaching. A date certain by which all documents will 

be produced and interrogatory responses supplemented is needed for orderly scheduling of the 

remaining depositions. MOSAID requests that MediaTek confirm that it will promptly produce all 

below-identified documents and supplement its deficient and incomplete responses to MOSAID’s 

interrogatories within 10 days of receipt of this letter. Production and/or supplementation after any 

upcoming depositions would be unacceptable and highly prejudicial. 

A. Deficiencies in MediaTek’s Document Production

The categories of documents that have been identified as missing from MediaTek’s

production including the following: 

 all U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, earning call transcripts, annual

reports, and other financial documents prepared in connection with MediaTek’s public

reporting duties in any country from 2017 to now;

 all expert reports and exhibits thereto, expert deposition transcripts, MediaTek deposition

transcripts, MediaTek discovery responses, MediaTek trial exhibits, trial transcripts, and

settlement agreement (and/or any other agreement made or proposed in connection with)

resolving the litigation captioned MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Case

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID

#: 2488
  

2 

No. 4-11-cv-05341 (NDCA), involving U.S. Patent No. 6,889,331 entitled Dynamic 

Voltage Control Method and Apparatus; 

 all forecasts of U.S. sales, including those described in the MediaTek job posting (Exhibit 

A); 

 all third-party statistics, analyses, estimations of any kind, evaluations, and/or reports 

related to MediaTek’s global and/or U.S. market share generally or for product categories 

such as processors, smartphones, and/or other consumer devices; 

 all consumer reports purporting to relate or reflecting factors that drive consumer demand 

for the Accused Instrumentalities and/or electronic devices including the Accused 

Instrumentalities; 

 all documents indicating MediaTek’s awareness of any Entity’s use, import, sales and/or 

offers to sell products that contain the Accused Instrumentalities in the United States; 

 all documents related to the UL’s delisting of devices including MediaTek’s Helio G90, 

G70, P95, P90, P65, P60, P20 and A2, as reported by the UL at 

https://benchmarks.ul.com/news/ul-delists-mediatek-powered-phones-with-suspectbenchmark-scores; 

 all product requirements or product specifications MediaTek received from direct and 

indirect customers related in any way to the Accused Instrumentalities; 

 copies of all documents used to create financial summaries produced by MediaTek; 

 documents identifying any processors, chips or chipsets that do not include MediaTek’s 

power management functionality, as well as pricing for such products; 

 documents reflecting sales by unit and geographic location, price data, cost data, 

advertisements for PMICS alone or in bundles of with SoCs including the Accused 

Instrumentalities; 

 documents sufficient to understand the evolution of CorePilot and its various versions, 

including documents identifying which power and thermal management features 

correspond to each version; 

 design specifications for each power or thermal management software component (e.g., 

System High-Level Design Documents, Customer Documents, Development Guides, 

Programming Guides, Intros, Technical Overviews), including at least PPM, CPU DVFS, 

GPU DVFS, APU DVFS, ATM, Hotplug, Infrastructure System Configuration Module, 

HMP, and EAS+, for each Accused Product; 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID

#: 2489
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MEDIATEK, INC. 

MEDIATEK USA, INC., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil No. 2:23-cv-00129 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER GRANTING MOSAID’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS 

AND COMPLETE INTERROGATORY RESPONSES 

Before the Court is Plaintiff MOSAID Technologies Inc.’s (“MOSAID”) Motion to 

Compel Defendants to Produce Responsive Documents and Complete Interrogatory Responses 

(the “Motion”). Having fully considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion 

should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID

#: 2490
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MEDIATEK, INC. 

MEDIATEK USA, INC., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil No. 2:23-cv-00129 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER GRANTING MOSAID’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS 

AND COMPLETE INTERROGATORY RESPONSES 

Before the Court is Plaintiff MOSAID Technologies Inc.’s (“MOSAID”) Motion to 

Compel Defendants to Produce Responsive Documents and Complete Interrogatory Responses 

(the “Motion”). Having fully considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion 

should be and hereby is GRANTED. 

Case 2:23-cv-00129-JRG-RSP Document 127 Filed 09/13/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID

#: 2491