Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 70 Filed 10/15/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1384
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 70 Filed 10/15/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 1385
`
`1.
`
`Use of Intel Revenues on PDX 1.25 and PDX 1.32. Intel preserves its objections to the
`
`presentation of Intel’s total accused revenues in PDX 1.25 and PDX 1.32, see Dkt. 797 at 3-4.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants object to the testimony of Patrick Connor1. The designated testimony is
`
`irrelevant, misleading, and unduly prejudicial and is in contravention of the Court’s ruling on
`
`Defendants’ MIL 8. See Dkt. 876.2 Alacritech designates testimony regarding Intel’s knowledge
`
`of and understanding of the scope of the litigation between Microsoft and Alacritech, even though
`
`the Court ruled that any discussion of the Microsoft-Alacritech litigation must be limited to only
`
`that which is reasonable for purposes of providing context for the Broadcom-Alacritech settlement
`
`agreement. The testimony designated goes well beyond that and includes irrelevant discussion as
`
`to whether Intel believed it would need a license to Alacritech’s Chimney product as a result of the
`
`Microsoft-Alacritech litigation, even though the Asserted Patents were not at issue in that
`
`litigation. Presentation of the designated testimony to the jury would be highly prejudicial to Intel
`
`as it would serve no purpose other than to suggest that Intel somehow had knowledge of the
`
`Asserted Patents (despite no evidence) through that litigation and/or infringed or required a license
`
`to the Asserted Patents.
`
`Further, the designated testimony is more prejudicial than the underlying documents that
`
`are discussed therein. While the underlying documents (see, e.g., PTX-033) may be admissible,
`
`they are being used in the corresponding testimony in a misleading way to suggest that the
`
`
`1 Alacritech designates the following lines from the Deposition of Patrick Connor: 7:19-20; 9:24-10:2
`53:3-15; 78:17-20; 78:22-78:22; 84:19-24; 85:15-20; 97:21-98:4; 98:10-98:24; 120:6-13, 102:7-102:12; 120:15-22;
`103:13-15; 106:9-14; 106:16-24; 107:17-107:19; 107:21-22; 107:24-108:10; 108:12; 110:2-7; 110:24-111:15;
`111:18-25; 115:16-24; 117:10-117:17; 118:3-6; 119:6-9; 119:11; 128:25-129:17.
`2 In the interest of efficiency, the parties previously had agreed not to raise with the issue of the Patrick Connor
`testimony, see Ex. A. However, in light of the prejudicial nature of the designated testimony and the Court’s ruling
`on Defendants’ MIL 8, Defendants have reconsidered the prior agreement and notified Alacritech of the changed
`position.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 70 Filed 10/15/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 1386
`
`documents are somehow referring to the Asserted Patents, even though none of the Asserted
`
`Patents had issued as of the date of the documents.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 With respect to PDX-1.26, Dell reserves the right to object the slide as prejudicial and irrelevant pending
`Alacritech revising the slide as indicated in its 9:48 PM email, but those updated slides are not yet served.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 70 Filed 10/15/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 1387
`
`Dated: October 15, 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 70 Filed 10/15/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 1388
`
` 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
`Alston & Bird LLP - Atlanta
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 70 Filed 10/15/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1389
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 70 Filed 10/15/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 1390
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on October 15, 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/ Harry L. Gillam, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`