Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 59 Filed 10/14/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1237
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DELL INC.,
`
`Defendant,
`
`and
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`MORNING DISPUTES FOR OCTOBER 16, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 59 Filed 10/14/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1238
`
`1. Testimony of Manasi Deval
`
`Defendants’ object to the introduction of lines 17:14-18:03 and 19:21-25 of Manasi
`
`Deval’s testimony. This testimony includes Ms. Deval’s testimony regarding Microsoft’s RSC
`
`feature (receive segment coalescing), Deval Tr. 17:24-18:3, as well as the first Windows server
`
`that enabled Microsoft’s receive segment coalescing feature. The Court already excluded
`
`documents related to Microsoft’s implementation of RSC at the October 10, 2023 pretrial
`
`conference, yet Alacritech is seeking to introduce testimony regarding the same issue through
`
`Ms. Deval’s deposition testimony. See 10/10 Pretrial Tr. 40:20-44:25 (excluding technical
`
`documents regarding Microsoft’s implementation of RSC). That is improper, as Microsoft’s
`
`RSC feature has no relevance to any issue in the case and is only likely to confuse the jury.
`
`This testimony should also be excluded for several other reasons. First, the designated
`
`testimony exceeds the scope of the parties’ Agreed MIL 17, which precludes the parties from
`
`introducing testimony for purposes of infringement comparing the accused product to any non-
`
`accused product.1 See Dkt. 796. Second, as raised at the pretrial conference, how Microsoft
`
`chooses to implement RSC is not relevant to the issues in this case. The only relevant feature is
`
`the functionality in Intel’s products. Third, such testimony is more prejudicial than probative
`
`and is likely to cause juror confusion, as it may cause the jury to conflate Intel’s implementation
`
`of the accused RSC functionality with Microsoft’s implementation. 10/10 Pretrial Tr. 41:15-25.
`
`Finally, Alacritech has not presented any foundation establishing Ms. Deval’s personal
`
`knowledge with regard to Microsoft’s implementation of RSC. Deval Tr. 17:24-18:03.
`
`
`1 The parties’ notice of agreed MIL states, “Agreed MIL No. 17: The parties shall be precluded
`from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument for purposes of infringement or non-
`infringement comparing the accused product or method to the preferred embodiments, the
`specification, or any non-accused product or method.” Dkt. 796.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 59 Filed 10/14/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1239
`
`
`
`2. Lack of Testimony from Srihari Makineni, Patrick Connor, and Manasi Deval
`
`Defendants object to the introduction of PTX-020, PTX-021, and PTX-022 through Srihari
`
`Makineni, the introduction of PTX-036, PTX-038, PTX-039, PTX-265 through Patrick Connor,
`
`and the introduction of PTX-011 through Manasi Deval. Alacritech designated no testimony
`
`regarding any of PTX-020, PTX-021, and PTX-022 in Mr. Makineni’s testimony, no testimony
`
`regarding PTX-038, PTX-039, PTX-265 in Mr. Connor’s testimony, and no testimony regarding
`
`PTX-011 in Ms. Deval’s testimony. As the Court made clear at the September 28, 2023 pre-trial
`
`conference, even if an exhibit is pre-admitted, pre-admitted exhibits are “not considered part of
`
`the record of your case unless they’re actually used with a witness.” 9/28 Pretrial Tr. 22:7-16.
`
`Plaintiff may not simply lodge exhibits into the record without any substantive testimony to lay
`
`the foundation for their admission. Defendants also preserve their objections to these documents
`
`as articulated at the pre-trial conference.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 10/10/23 Rough Pretrial Tr. at 54-55, 61-62.
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 59 Filed 10/14/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1240
`
`Dated: October 14, 2023
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` s/ Taylor Gooch
`Taylor Gooch (Pro Hac Vice)
`California Bar #294282
`Taylor.Gooch@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`One Front Street, Suite 3500
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (628) 235 1000
`Fax: (628) 235-1001
`
`
`Sonal N. Mehta (Pro Hac Vice)
`California Bar # 222086
`Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel: (650) 858-6000
`Fax: (650) 858-6100
`
`
`Joseph J. Mueller (Pro Hac Vice)
`Massachusetts Bar # 647567
`Joseph.Mueller@wilmerhale.com
`Richard O’Neill (Pro Hac Vice)
`Massachusetts Bar # 638170
`Richard.O’Neill@wilmerhale.com
`Kate Saxton (Pro Hac Vice)
`Massachusetts Bar # 655903
`Kate.Saxton@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Fax: (617) 526-5000
`
`
`Harry L. Gillam, Jr. (07921800)
`Gillam & Smith LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 59 Filed 10/14/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1241
`
`
`
`David Folsom
`FOLSOM ADR PLLC
`6002-B Summerfield Drive
`Texarkana, TX 75503
`Telephone: (903) 277-7303
`david@folsomadr.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Intervenor Intel Corporation
`
`/s/ Michael J. Newton
`Michael J. Newton (TX Bar No. 24003844)
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`1950 University Avenue
`5th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Phone: (650) 838-2000
`Fax: (650) 838-2001
`mike.newton@alston.com
`
`
`Brady Cox (TX Bar No. 24074084)
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`2828 North Harwood Street, 18th Floor
`Dallas, Texas 75201-2139
`Tel: (214) 922-3400
`Fax: (214) 922-3899
`brady.cox@alston.com
`
`
`Deron R Dacus (TX Bar No. 00790553)
`THE DACUS FIRM, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, Texas 75701
`(903) 705-1117
`(903) 581-2543 Fax
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`
`Kirk T. Bradley (NC Bar No. 26490)
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`Tel: (704) 444-1000
`Fax: (704) 444-1111
`kirk.bradley@alston.com
`
`
`Emily Chambers Welch
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 59 Filed 10/14/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1242
`
`Alston & Bird LLP - Atlanta
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
`404.881.7000
`Fax: 404.881.7777
`emily.welch@alston.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Dell, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on October 14, 2023, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system and electronic mail per Local
`
`Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`/s/ Taylor Gooch
`
`