of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
1/31
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALBANY DIVISION
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC
INSTITUTE ANDDYNAMIC ADVANCES, LLC,
Plaintiffs,v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
Civil Action No.1:13-cv-00633-DNH-DEP
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
2/31
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2
I. Apple’s Siri Service Infringes All of RPI’s Presumptively ValidClaims ........................................................................................................ 2
II. Several Alternative Reasonable Royalty Models are PotentiallyAvailable to Determine Apple’s Infringement Damages ............................. 3
III. RPI Discovery Requests Seek Information on Seven TopicsRelevant to Reasonable Royalty Models that Apple Has Refused toProduce ..................................................................................................... 4
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 7
I.
Discovery of Apple Information that Informs a Reasonable RoyaltyAnalysis Is Necessary and Routine ........................................................... 7
II. The Court Should Order Apple to Produce Responsive Informationfor the Seven Topics at Issue .................................................................... 9
A. Apple’s Prior Litigation Statements, Testimony, and JudicialAdmissions Related to Siri’s Value .................................................. 9
B. Apple’s Valuation of Siri’s Impact on Revenue, Profit,Smartphone / Mobile Operating System Market Share, andSiri Marketing Strategy .................................................................. 11
C.
Apple’s Agreements with Nuance and Other Third-PartiesRelated to Siri’s NL or Speech Recognition Technology ............... 16
D. Apple Agreements with Siri Partner Websites ............................... 18
E. Apple’s Agreements with Automobile ManufacturesAdvertising Siri .............................................................................. 19
F. Apple’s Internal Licenses Related to Siri ....................................... 21
G. Apple’s Deferred Revenue Accounting Related to Siri .................. 24
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 25
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 2 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
3/31
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Adrian Shipholding, Inc. v. Lawndale Group S.A., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4234, at *26–
27 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2012) ....................................................................................... 15 AGA Med. Corp. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157787, at *22–24 (D.
Minn. Oct. 18, 2011) .................................................................................................... 8
Cornell Research Found. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47720(N.D.N.Y, Oct. 11, 2005).............................................................................................. 4
Cornell Research Found. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55, 62–63 (N.D.N.Y 2003) .................................................................................................................................... 4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1 .................................................................................................... 7
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
.................................................................................................................................... 8Georgia-Pacific Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 at 1139 ........................................................ 23
Golden Trade v. Lee Apparel Co., 143 F.R.D. 514, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ..................... 24
Grigoleit at *38–39 .......................................................................................................... 9
Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 686, at *38–39 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 3,2014) ........................................................................................................................... 8
High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83126, at *15–16 (D. Kan.July 29, 2011) ............................................................................................................ 23
Hubbell v. O.W. Hubbell & Sons, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26030, at *1–2 (N.D.N.Y
Mar. 28, 2008). ............................................................................................................ 8
Johns-Manville Corp. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 718 F. Supp. 1310, 1315 ( E.D. Mich.1989) ......................................................................................................................... 23
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp. , 712 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1289(M.D. Fla. 2010). ........................................................................................................ 23
King v. Pratt & Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475, 476 (S.D. Fl. 1995) ....................................... 15
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................. 3
P&G Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 547, 613 (D. Del. 1997) ............. 9
Positive Techs., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26289, at *12–15 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 26, 2013) ...................................................................................................... 8
Rahman v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30275, at *5(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2009) ........................................................................................... 15
Realtime Data, LLC D/B/A/ Ixo, v. Morgan Stanley, 1:11-cv-06696-KBF Dkt. No. 459, 2– 3 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012) ............................................................................................. 8
Starlight Int’l Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626, 638-640 (D. Kan. 1999) .......................... 15
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 3 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
4/31
iii
Tailored Lighting, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania Prods., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 340, 2009 WL367584, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) .................................................................................. 15
United States v. Taylor , 166 F.R.D. 356, 360–63 (M.D.N.C. 1996) ............................... 15
W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. AGA Med. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4942, at *4–5 (D. Del.
Jan. 17, 2012) ............................................................................................................ 23
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 4 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
5/31
1
INTRODUCTION
Apple has spent nearly $ acquiring and developing the Siri personal
assistant service that infringes RPI’s asserted patent. But in response to RPI’s
discovery requests directed to the value of Siri, Apple has either refused to produce
information in its possession about the value of Siri, or claims such information does not
exist. RPI knows this pertinent information is in Apple’s possession, both because
and because Apple
relied on such information in its lawsuit against Samsung filed in February 2012.
In that lawsuit, Apple accused Samsung of infringing several Apple patents,
including two patents that cover Siri. Apple sought and obtained a preliminary injunction
and a $120 million jury verdict against Samsung based primarily on Siri’s importance to
Apple in its global competition against Samsung’s Android-operated smartphones.
While the Federal Circuit later reversed the preliminary injunction, it ratified the lower
court’s findings—based on Apple evidence—that Siri is a significant source of consumer
demand for Apple’s mobile devices.
The discovery RPI seeks is uncontroversial. RPI requested from Apple the
information it used to obtain a preliminary injunction and nine-figure damages award
against Samsung. Both awards were based largely on the evidence Apple submitted
about Siri’s value. Despite RPI’s repeated and specific requests, Apple has refused to
produce that information, and other information like it. Such information is highly
probative of the reasonable royalty Apple would have paid to RPI in a hypothetical
negotiation that would have occurred just months before Apple sued Samsung for
infringing Apple patents covering Siri. Apple’s discovery misconduct is improper and the
Court should compel Apple to produce the discovery RPI seeks.
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 5 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
6/31
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 6 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
7/31
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 7 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
8/31
4
this method, infringement damages are calculated by subtracting theinfringer’s usual or acceptable net profit from its internal projections of itsexpected net profit derived from its infringement. Id.
Where (as here) a patent does not have an established royalty based on prior
license agreements, each of the aforementioned reasonable royalty damages models
depends primarily on documents and information the patentee seeks and receives from
the accused infringer during discovery. See, e.g., Cornell Research Found. v. Hewlett
Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55, 62–63 (N.D.N.Y 2003) (Peebles, M.J.) (reasonable royalty
analysis depends on information uniquely in the possession of defendant).1
III. RPI Discovery Requests Seek Information on Seven Topics Relevant toReasonable Royalty Models that Apple Has Refused to Produce
RPI served, and Apple objected and responded to, five sets of requests for
production containing 134 document requests. Exs. 1–7 (Apple Resps. to RPI’s
Requests for Production, Sets 1–5, and amended responses to Sets 2 and 3).2 RPI also
served, and Apple objected and responded to, four sets of interrogatories containing 23
interrogatories. Exs. 8–11 (Apple Resps. to RPI’s Interrogatories, Sets 1–4). Finally, RPI
served Apple with three 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices containing 69 total topics. Exs. 12–
14 (RPI’s 30(b)(6) Notices to Apple, 1–3). With respect to every noticed topic Apple
objected and either stated it would present a witness to testify generally about a
substitute topic Apple unilaterally defined, refused to present a witness altogether, or
1 As the Court is no doubt aware, some portions of its Order were subsequentlymodified. See Cornell Research Found. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS47720 (N.D.N.Y, Oct. 11, 2005).
2 Citations to “Ex.” or “Exs.” refer to the exhibits described and attached to theconcurrently-filed Declaration of Alexander E. Gasser (“Gasser Decl.”).
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 8 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
9/31
5
has not yet responded. See Exs. 15–16 (Apple Resps. to Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notices, 1–
2); Gasser Decl. ¶¶ 16–19.3
RPI’s discovery requests seek specific information on seven topics related to
potential reasonable royalty models and damages theories:
1) Apple documents, statements, and test imony about Siri ’s value inother litigation. Documents, pleadings, testimony, exhibits,demonstratives, declarations, etc. from other litigation that contains Applerepresentations about Siri’s technology and value to Apple, including
Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 5:12-cv-00630 [RFP 63]; and Appleinterrogatory responses concerning Apple’s representations in otherlitigation about Siri’s technology and its value to Apple [Apple Resp. toInterrogatory 13].
2) Apple’s assessment of Siri ’s value. Apple documents concerningApple’s reason for acquiring Siri, Inc., and Siri’s impact on Apple iOS unitsales, revenues, profits, customer loyalty, first-time smartphone buyers,and smartphone / mobile operating system market share [RFPs 83, 106– 109, 112]; Apple interrogatory responses describing Siri’s value to Apple[Apple Resp. to Interrogatories 8–18; 20–21]; and Apple witnessesprepared to testify about these issues [Noticed Topics 1–6; 8, 11–12; 15– 17; 23, 25–26; 63, 65–66].
3) Nuance and speech recognit ion agreements . Apple documents
(including any agreements and licenses) concerning Apple payments forand Siri use of NLP technology, speech recognition technology, andNuance NL or speech recognition technology used in Siri [RFPs 102–109;124–217]; Apple interrogatory responses regarding Apple’s payments forand Siri’s use of speech recognition technology, and Nuance NL orspeech technology used in Siri [Apple Resp. to Interrogatory 19]; and anApple witness prepared to testify about these issues [Noticed Topics 20– 22; 37, 52–53; 56–58; 61, 64–66].
4) Siri Partner agreements. Apple and Siri, Inc. documents, licenses, andagreements related to Apple’s third-party Siri partners with which Siriinterfaces to respond to user queries, such as OpenTable, Wolfram|Alpha,Fandango, Rotten Tomatoes, and Yelp. [RFPs 91, 102–109]; Appleinterrogatory responses regarding Apple agreements with its third-party
3 To date, Apple has presented only three 30(b)(6) witnesses for deposition on just 15 ofRPI’s noticed topics. And of the three depositions RPI has taken, two Apple witnesseswere only prepared to cover a small fraction of their designated topics—and the otherwas not prepared to testify at all (see infra pp. 11–15).
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 9 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
10/31
6
Siri partners [Apple Responses to Interrogatory 19]; and an Apple witnessprepared to testify about these issues [Noticed Topics 21–22; 37].
5) Automobile manufacturer agreements . Apple documents, licenses, andagreements between Apple and automobile manufacturers deploying Siri
for use in the car, including products known as iOS in the Car and SiriEyes Free [RFPs 91, 94–96]; Apple interrogatory responses regardingApple agreements with automobile manufacturers deploying Siri [AppleResp. to Interrogatory 19]; and an Apple witness prepared to testify aboutthese issues [Noticed Topic 67].
6) Apple internal licenses covering Siri technology. Apple documentsconcerning Apple internal licenses that cover or relate to Siri or Siritechnology [RFPs 91–109]; Apple interrogatory responses describing andexplaining such internal licenses [Apple Resp. to Interrogatories 19, 21];and an Apple witness prepared to testify about these issues [Noticed
Topics 13–14; 20, 23, 61, 63].
7) Apple deferred revenue and estimated sell ing price (ESP) related toSiri. Apple documents concerning Apple’s deferred revenue and ESPamounts and methodology concerning Siri [RFPs 83, 97]; Appleinterrogatory responses describing and explaining deferred revenue andESP concerning Siri [Apple Resp. to Interrogatories 14–15; 18, 20–21];and an Apple witness prepared to testify about these issues [NoticedTopics 16–17; 24, 63].
Apple has objected to producing documents responsive to any of the RPI
requests for production concerning the above seven topics. Apple has also largely
defaulted in providing meaningful responses to RPI’s interrogatories concerning the
same seven topics. Id. ¶¶ 11–12, 28, 36, 41, 47. Likewise, Apple has either refused to
produce a corporate witness prepared to testify on the seven topics described above,
presented an unprepared witness, or presented witnesses on topics that Apple
redefined into vague and meaningless generalities. Id. ¶¶ 13–16, 19, 25.
public reports have widely publicized) the existence
of Apple information responsive to the seven information categories—and yet Apple still
refuses to produce such information. Id. ¶¶ 40–43, 45. Apple’s discovery misconduct is
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 10 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
11/31
7
contrary to the broad scope of discovery authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.4 Moreover,
Apple’s refusal to produce properly noticed and requested documents, interrogatory
responses, and prepared witnesses essential to analyzing the hypothetical negotiation
over a reasonable royalty prejudices RPI. Because RPI is required to present a
damages model rooted in the facts of the case, Apple has made a determined effort to
prevent RPI’s access to those critical facts. Id.
ARGUMENT
I. Discovery of Apple Information that Informs a Reasonable Royalty AnalysisIs Necessary and Routine
RPI is entitled to discovery from Apple regarding any non-privileged matter that is
relevant to its claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discoverable information is not limited to
information based on Apple’s view of what is relevant—and Apple should not be
permitted to pick and choose from RPI’s discovery requests and unilaterally announce
which of RPI’s properly served and noticed requests it will respond to or ignore. Instead,
discoverable information encompasses any evidence “reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. A party resisting discovery bears the burden
of showing “specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the
federal discovery rules,” each discovery request “is not relevant or how each question is
overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive, by submitting affidavits or offering evidence
4 Apple’s discovery antics in this case do not appear to be an isolated incident. See Ex.17 (annotated list summarizing 13 published orders issued in the last 30 monthsgranting motions to compel Apple to produce responsive documents that werewithheld—including cases assessing costs against Apple or precluding Apple fromputting in certain evidence at trial based on its failure to produce responsiveinformation during discovery related to such evidence).
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 11 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
12/31
8
revealing the nature of the burden.” Hubbell v. O.W. Hubbell & Sons, Inc., 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 26030, at *1–2 (N.D.N.Y Mar. 28, 2008).
Particularity with respect to patent damages, parties are entitled to broad
discovery into potentially relevant information—even if by itself such information would
be inadmissible at trial. Positive Techs., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
26289, at *12–15 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2013) (ordering information produced concerning
non-infringing accessories and content of infringing product because of potential
relevance to reasonable royalty rate, even though LaserDynamics precluded its
admissibility). The reason is that failing to require production of information that could
inform a damages analysis becomes, in effect, a premature Daubert ruling. See
Realtime Data, LLC D/B/A/ Ixo, v. Morgan Stanley, 1:11-cv-06696-KBF Dkt. No. 459, 2–
3 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012) (granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel despite “serious
questions” about admissibility to avoid making “a preclusive ruling on a potential
damages theory.”). As a result, courts routinely grant such discovery and permit experts
to rely upon it. See, e.g., AGA Med. Corp. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 157787, at *22–24 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2011) (granting motion to compel sales
data for non-accused product); Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
686, at *38–39 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2014) (ordering discovery into per-unit royalty within 12-
cent range and directing parties to provide evidence supporting the proper royalty).
The most common method for ascertaining a reasonable royalty rate is the
fifteen-factor framework set forth in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F.
Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). Factor fifteen sets forth the willing buyer/willing
seller hypothetical negotiation that takes place at the time of first infringement, and
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 12 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
13/31
9
through which all other factors are considered. See P&G Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands,
Inc., 989 F. Supp. 547, 613 (D. Del. 1997). This fact-intensive reconstruction of the
hypothetical world at the time of first infringement requires “thorough, substantive, and
comprehensive” evidence for trier of fact. Grigoleit at *38–39.
II. The Court Should Order Apple to Produce Responsive Information for theSeven Topics at Issue
A. Apple’s Prior Litigat ion Statements, Test imony, and Judic ial AdmissionsRelated to Siri’s Value
RPI has repeatedly requested documents from Apple related to Apple’s other
litigation involving the value of Siri—particularly Apple’s lawsuit filed against Samsung in
February 2012 asserting two patents covering Siri. See Gasser Decl. ¶ 41. The only
documents Apple produced were two damages expert declarations (Exs. 18 and 19,
Vellturo Declarations) and a damages expert report (Ex. 20, Vellturo Report). The three
documents are heavily redacted. And they were each produced without any of the
attachments or cited evidence, and without any of the exhibits including Apple business
records, Apple witness declarations, Apple deposition testimony, or any other
documents. Apple has refused to produce anything more from its case against
Samsung that resulted in the district court entering a preliminary injunction against
Samsung based on an Apple Siri patent (subsequently reversed by the Federal Circuit),
and also resulting in a $120 million jury verdict for Apple. See Gasser Decl. ¶¶ 21–23,
41, 45; see also Ex. 21 (deposition excerpts from Apple technical expert on Siri
patents).
The three heavily redacted documents Apple produced after months of delay
establish the existence and importance of hundreds of documents from Apple’s litigation
with Samsung over Apple’s Siri patent that are not only probative but contain Apple
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 13 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
14/31
10
judicial admissions that go to the heart of certain damages issues in this case. For
example, in addition to an unknown number of documents produced, Apple put forth at
least two experts and three fact witnesses that testified in declarations, depositions,
hearings, and trial about Siri’s value and Siri’s importance to Apple in its global
competition for market share against Samsung’s Android-operated mobile devices.
Those witnesses and the subject of their testimony include the following:
Apple’s damages expert, Dr. Vellturo, testified that during the time periodaround RPI and Apple’s hypothetical negotiation (the period leading up tothe iPhone 4S launch in October 2011), the smartphone marketplace wasat a critical inflection point
ee Ex. 18, ¶¶ 5, 17–64; Ex. 19, ¶¶ 10–71. Healso testified about
(see Ex. 18, ¶¶ 7–8, 13, 44, 49; Ex. 19, ¶¶ 96–106), andcalculated reasonable royalties for Apple patents covering Siri (see Ex. 20,¶¶ 79–83, 192–206, 330–433);
Apple’s technical expert for its asserted Siri patents, Dr. Polish, testifiedthat the speech recognition function of Siri is not as important to customerdemand as Siri’s ability to find information a user seeks (see Ex. 18, ¶¶
99–101; Ex. 21, pp. 154–58);
Apple’s marketing expert, Dr. Hauser,
(see Ex. 20, ¶¶ 164, 255–88, citingHauser testimony);
Mr. Joswiak, Apple’s worldwide Vice President for iPhone ProductMarketing, testified about
ee Ex.
18, ¶ 100; Ex. 20, ¶¶ 195, 356, 363, citing Joswiak testimony);
Mr. Sinclair, an Apple Product Marketing Manager for iPhone, testified that
(see Ex. 18, ¶ 7, 10, 42, 44, citing Sinclairtestimony).
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 14 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
15/31
11
Apart from Dr. Vellturo’s redacted reports, Apple has not produced any of the
evidence it used—and the district court relied upon5 —to establish Siri’s value to Apple.
B. Apple’s Valuation of Siri’s Impact on Revenue, Profit, Smartphone / Mobile
Operating System Market Share, and Siri Marketing Strategy
Apple has not only refused to produce the specific evidence it relied upon to
establish Siri’s value to Apple in its case against Samsung, it has virtually not produced
any document, interrogatory response, or witness with information showing how Apple
values Siri. See Ex. 42 (Email between counsel dated May 20, 2014); see also Gasser
Decl. ¶¶ 41, 47. Apple has spent in the neighborhood of $ to acquire and build-
out Siri, yet it has repeatedly asserted in this litigation that such documents do not exist.
Id. These claims are not credible, particularly in light of the fact that Apple had little
difficulty producing documents and witnesses establishing Siri’s value when it sued
Samsung. Thus, Apple should produce documents that tie Siri’s contribution to the
general financial information Apple did produce, including the specific information RPI
has requested (see supra at 5–6, listing the specific discovery requests directed to Siri’s
value).
Apple’s discovery intransigence on these issues is best illustrated in the 30(b)(6)
deposition RPI took of Allen Denison, Apple’s Senior Product Manager for iOS
The deposition occurred on August 6, 2014—two weeks
after the July 22, 2014 telephonic hearing with the Court when RPI sought leave to file
this motion. That Mr. Denison was unprepared to testify on the topics for which he had
5 See Ex. 40 at 65–85 (order granting preliminary injunction based on Apple’s Siri patentonly, and the importance of first-time purchasers in the smartphone market). Althoughthe Federal Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction order, it first ratified the keyfindings of the district court that matter in this case. Apple v. Samsung, 695 F.3d 1370,1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 15 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
16/31
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 16 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
17/31
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 17 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
18/31
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 18 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
19/31
15
(table of citations to Apple objections and Mr. Denison’s response). Mr. Denison’s
testimony did not provide any meaningful information to RPI—but instead consisted of
questions, disruptive objections, and non-responses keyed to counsel’s objection.
“A corporation has an affirmative duty to prepare the designee ‘to the extent
matters are reasonably available, whether from documents, past employees, or other
sources’." Rahman v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
30275, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2009) (quoting Tailored Lighting, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania
Prods., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 340, 2009 WL 367584, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. 2009)). The case law in
the Second Circuit and nationally makes it abundantly clear that “[t]he production of an
unprepared witness as a 30(b)(6) representative ‘is tantamount to a failure to appear’ for
the ordered deposition.” Adrian Shipholding, Inc. v. Lawndale Group S.A., 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 4234, at *26–27 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2012) (citations omitted).6 See also
Starlight Int’l Inc. v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626, 638-640 (D. Kan. 1999) (corporations have
a duty to designate knowledgeable 30(b)(6) witnesses and to “prepare them to fully and
unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter”); King v. Pratt &
Whitney, 161 F.R.D. 475, 476 (S.D. Fl. 1995) (same). As the Samsung case illustrates,
Apple knows which of its employees have knowledge and how to prepare them to testify
about the value of Siri and Apple’s marketing strategy for Siri.
6 While there is limited in-district case law on this subject, the origin of the quotation,and seminal case on the duty to instruct and prepare a witness for a 30(b)(6)deposition, is United States v. Taylor , 166 F.R.D. 356, 360–63 (M.D.N.C. 1996). Thiscase outlines the history and purpose of Rule 30(b)(6), and makes it clear that suchpurpose is essentially to prevent exactly what Apple has done. Courts in every circuitexcept the Federal Circuit, which defers to the law of regional circuits on evidentiaryquestions not unique to its jurisdiction, have endorsed this case and its holding.
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 19 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
20/31
16
C. Apple’s Agreements with Nuance and Other Third-Parties Related to Siri’sNL or Speech Recognition Technology
See Ex. 23 (Stasior
Dep. 46:11–15; 84:3–9).
See Ex. 24 (Email from P. Oppenheimer to S. Forstall
APL-DynAdv_00099576-78).
(see Ex. 23 (Stasior Dep.
27:24–29:3))
that information is relevant to RPI’s
patent damages. Georgia Pacific factor
two: the rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the
patent-in-suit.
Apple contends, ipse dixit, that speech to text agreements and licenses are not
“comparable” licenses and has refused to produce such information. But precisely
because Apple refuses to produce any speech to text documents or agreements, no
one knows whether such licenses are comparable—or whether they are probative to
any other reasonable royalty or hypothetical negotiation issue. See Ex. 25 (Email from
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 20 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
21/31
17
Apple counsel declining RPI’s request for speech agreements stating, “[w]e reiterate our
position that this case is about NLP technology and that is what defines the scope of
relevant information.”).
Apple’s document requests to RPI specifically define “Relevant Patents” to
include speech to text patents—and that definition further reveals Apple’s concession
that speech to text technology “is comparable” to RPI’s patent technology:
patents or patent applications, other than the patent-in-suit or relatedpatents/applications, relating to speech to text, natural languageprocessing technology, or any other technology that is comparableto that claimed in the patent-in-suit.
Ex. 26 (Apple’s First Requests for Production Requests to RPI at 3) (emphasis added).
Apple used that definition of “Relevant Patents” in numerous document requests, email
requests, and 30(b)(6) notices served on RPI. Gasser Decl. ¶¶ 29–30.
Moreover,
See, e.g., Ex. 27
and Ex. 28
.7
Apple cannot selectively produce
. Because this information
is relevant and discoverable—and particularly because Apple has conceded and even
7 Apple also proposed and consented to defining speech processing as relevant andcomparable to NLP when defining the scope of the Protective Order’s prosecution bar.The Order specifically defines “Affected Technologies” as, “computer-implementedmethods or systems for natural language processing technology, speech processingtechnology, or intelligent personal assistant technologies that provide naturallanguage processing or speech processing features.” (Dkt. 55, Agreed ProtectiveOrder, ¶¶ 1(j), 5(b); emphasis added.)
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 21 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
22/31
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 22 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
23/31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
24/31
20
Ex. 23 (Stasior Dep. 49:7–21).
Id. at 49:15–25; 50:18–52:8. Apple’s marketing behavior is far more consistent
with than Chang’s assertion. Apple’s CarPlay webpage features Siri,
as does the product itself, which is designed to be used without touching the iPhone.
See Ex. 32 (Apple CarPlay, https://www.apple.com/ios/carplay). Apple’s webpage
states that five car manufacturers (Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo)
will have CarPlay available in models in 2014, while 24 additional “committed partners”
will have CarPlay on future models.
More likely,
Apple possesses but is withholding such agreements—possibly because these
agreements refer to the use of the iOS system or CarPlay rather than the “use of Siri
technology” per se. But any agreements between Apple and automobile manufacturers
regarding CarPlay are responsive to RPI’s discovery requests regarding agreements
with makers and sellers of non-Apple products (including RFPs 91, 94–96) and must be
produced. These agreements are relevant to at least Georgia-Pacific factor eleven: “The
extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention; and any evidence probative
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 24 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
25/31
21
of the value of that use.” 318 F. Supp. at 1120. The terms and conditions of such
agreements could inform an expert’s analysis of the extent to which Apple and third
parties use Siri and its NLP—as well as the value of such use.
F. Apple’s Internal Licenses Related to Siri
RPI properly served document requests and interrogatories seeking information
concerning Apple internal licenses (license between two Apple entities) related to Siri or
its technology, including at least RFPs 91–109, which broadly cover all internal or
external licenses or acquisitions including as a party, or any values given or received by
Apple and/or its subsidiaries relating to Siri or any natural language interface
technology. See supra pp. 16–19. Apple has refused to produce or provide any
documents or interrogatory responses responsive to RPI’s discovery requests regarding
internal licenses. See Gasser Decl. ¶¶ 28–32; 38.
Counsel for Plaintiff previously tried to resolve this issue through its email, dated
June 23, 2014, requesting that Apple confirm
(e.g., APL-DynAdv_00092873-96949) upon
which Apple will rely for apportionment. See Ex. 11 (Apple’s Resp. to Interrogatory No.
21 at 9–11).
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 25 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
26/31
22
Apple first claimed that
. See Ex. 33 (Email from C. Chang dated June 26, 2014). Apple now more
generally states See Ex. 31
(Email from C. Chang dated July 29, 2014). Given Apple’s practice of defining relevant
responsive documents so narrowly, we request that the Court order Apple to produce all
internal licenses within the above four categories, as well as any internal license
documents embodying or relating to: (5) patents on NLP and virtual assistant
technology assigned to Apple and containing the terms “virtual assistant,” “intelligent
assistant,” or “digital assistant;” (6) the universal search patent asserted against
Samsung that Apple attributed to Siri in collateral litigation; and (7) any international or
foreign counterparts to the above.
Apple is known to have financial arrangements concerning IP interests with at
least its own foreign subsidiaries. In 2013, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations found that Apple regularly assigns “economic rights” in its IP to two of
its Irish subsidiaries, Apple Operations International and Apple Sales International.
Ex. 34 (Levin Memorandum dated May 21, 2013 at 17, DA 0011077). An adequate
response to Plaintiff’s RFP 83 would include, at a minimum, the documents Apple
provided to the Senate investigation Committee. An adequate response to the other
requests would require all documents showing the specific arrangements between
Apple and its subsidiaries with respect to assigning “economic rights” to its IP, including
cost sharing agreements. Even if not a “license” such agreements reflect a measure of
the value of Apple’s IP, including Siri-related IP.
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 26 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
27/31
23
Internal Apple licenses from one entity to another are potentially important data
points in a reasonable royalty analysis. See, e.g., Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527
F.3d 1359, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding no error where district court considered,
and ultimately decided upon a rate exceeding, the rate contemplated by an intra-firm
license); Johns-Manville Corp. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 718 F. Supp. 1310, 1315 ( E.D.
Mich. 1989) (characterizing intra-firm licenses as “a logical analytical floor for the
running royalty damages component”), aff’d 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1075 (Fed. Cir. Jan.
24, 1991). Such licenses are also relevant to ascertain the extent of Apple’s discovery
obligations. See W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. AGA Med. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4942,
at *4–5 (D. Del. Jan. 17, 2012) (granting limited jurisdictional discovery to determine
identity and control of, and thus jurisdiction over, purported infringer). Licenses to third
parties outside the U.S. are relevant and discoverable; baseless objections to such
discovery, even if routine, are sanctionable. See, e.g., High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel
Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83126, at *15–16 (D. Kan. July 29, 2011) (granting motion
to compel licensing communications with foreign third parties) and 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 101700 (sanctioning High Point for its objection). The use of foreign patent
licenses under the Georgia-Pacific framework dates back to Georgia-Pacific itself. See
Georgia-Pacific Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 at 1139 (evaluating three foreign licenses and
holding that foreign licenses were consistent with patentee’s policy of reserving its
exclusive rights to sell products where it was in the market). Indeed, such patents may
provide value precisely because they are not entered into under the threat of U.S.
patent litigation. See Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. Ciba Vision Corp. , 712 F.
Supp. 2d 1285, 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2010). Moreover, since Apple intends to rely upon
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 27 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
28/31
24
foreign patents for apportionment, investigation of foreign licenses is essential to
Plaintiff’s apportionment analysis. Such licenses are also relevant to ascertain the
extent of Apple’s discovery obligations. See Golden Trade v. Lee Apparel Co., 143
F.R.D. 514, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (holding that rights under a foreign license agreement
oblige licensor to secure documents from its licensee’s patents agents).
G. Apple’s Deferred Revenue Accounting Related to Siri
As a result of significant additions to Apple’s offerings of software upgrade rights
and non-software services such as Siri, Apple expects “about a $900 million sequential
increase in the net amount of revenue deferred.” See Ex. 35 (Apple’s 2013 Q4 Earnings
Call Tr. at 8, RPI0008174–90;
Significantly,
(id. at 116:14–23)
(id. at 112:11–113:11).
(id. at
113:5–11)
See id. at 114:4–19.
Yet in response to an interrogatory seeking information regarding revenue Apple
defers from sales of products containing Siri, how Apple calculates a per-unit selling
price if Siri were regularly sold by Apple as a stand-alone product or service, and
Apple’s best estimates of its selling price (“ESP”), Apple (1) reiterated stock objections;
(2) ignored the request regarding deferred revenue;
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 28 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
29/31
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 29 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
30/31
Date: August 15, 2014
Nicholas Mesiti (102192)HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY &MESITI
5 Columbia Cir.Albany, New York 12203(518) 452-5600 (telephone)(518) 452-5579 (facsimile)[email protected]
Counsel for PlaintiffRensselaer Polytechnic Institute
James R. Muldoon (506772)HARRIS BEACH PLLC
333 W. Washington StreetSuite 200Syracuse, New York 13202(315) 423-7100 (telephone)(315) 422-9331 (facsimile)
Steven P. Nonkes (517931)HARRIS BEACH PLLC99 Garnsey RoadPittsford, New York 14534
(585) 419-8800 (telephone)(585) 419-8813 (facsimile)[email protected]
Counsel for PlaintiffDynamic Advances, LLC
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Paul J. Skiermont Paul J. Skiermont (107001)G. Donald Puckett
Donald E. Tiller (107002)Alexander E. Gasser (603023)Shellie Stephens (107164)
SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4800WDallas, Texas 75201(214) 978-6600 (telephone)(214) 978-6601 (facsimile)[email protected]@skiermontpuckett.com
Counsel for PlaintiffsRensselaer Polytechnic Institute andDynamic Advances, LLC
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 30 of 31
8/18/2019 Mara 124 v Apple
31/31
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on August 15, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM DEFENDANT
APPLE, INC. was served on the following counsel of record via one or more of the
following: the individual email addresses set forth below, the Court’s regular ECF filing
procedures, and counsel’s provided list service address:
Mitchell J. Katz (301057)MENTER, RUDIN & TRIVELPIECE, P.C.
308 Maltbie Street Suite 200Syracuse, New York 13204-1498(315) 474-7541 (telephone)(315) 474-4040 (facsimile)[email protected]
David M. Lacy KustersRyan J. Marton
FENWICK & WEST LLP555 California Street, 12th FloorSan Francisco, California 94104(415) 875-2300 (telephone)(415) 281-1350 (facsimile)[email protected]@[email protected]
Hector J. RiberaWilliam A. Moseley, Jr.
Joe D. HaddenCarolyn ChangFENWICK & WEST LLPSilicon Valley Center801 California StreetMountain View, California 94041(650) 988-8500 (telephone)(650) 938-5200 (facsimile)[email protected]@[email protected]
/s/ Paul J. SkiermontPaul J. Skiermont
Case 1:13-cv-00633-DEP Document 124 Filed 08/22/14 Page 31 of 31