Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 74 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1461
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTURYLINK, INC., et al.,
`
`WISTRON CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`DELL INC.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`2:16-cv-00693-RWS-RSP (LEAD CASE)
`
`2:16-cv-00692-RWS-RSP
`
`2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP
`
`
`and
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Intervenors.
`
`
`
`ALACRITECH’S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF DISPUTES (Dkt. 70)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 74 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1462
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Objections Previously Overruled Regarding Apportioned Revenues
`
`Intel objects to PDX-1.25 and PDX-1.32 as a matter of preservation because the Court
`
`overruled Intel’s objections and arguments regarding the presentation of Intel’s total accused
`
`revenues in at least four separate instances. See Dkt. 865 at 8-9 (Memorandum Order Denying
`
`Intel’s Motion to Strike Alacritech’s Damages Expert Mr. Gunderson); Dkt. 886 at 7-8 (same);
`
`Dkt. 876 (Order Denying Defendants’ MIL No. 4: Motion to preclude total revenues or profits of
`
`the Defendants’ products at issue); 10/10 Hearing Tr. at 19:10-27:4 (rough) (overruling Intel’s
`
`objections regarding the presentation of Intel’s total accused revenues). Consistent with its prior
`
`orders, the Court should overrule Intel’s objections.
`
`II.
`
`Deposition Designations of Patrick Connor
`
`Defendants’ objection to Alacritech’s designations of Patrick Connor’s deposition
`
`testimony is not only untimely, it is an indisputable reneging on agreements reached by the parties.
`
`After the parties’ exchanged affirmative and counter-designations on Saturday evening (see Ex.
`
`1), the parties met and conferred, and Defendants offered to withdraw all objections to Alacritech’s
`
`affirmative designations—including Defendants’ objections to Mr. Connor’s designations—if
`
`Alacritech agreed to withdraw all objections to Defendants’ counter-designations. Alacritech
`
`agreed, and the parties raised disputes on other matters to the Court. See Defs.’ Ex. A. One such
`
`dispute involved pre-admitted exhibits Alacritech disclosed it intended to introduce through Mr.
`
`Connor’s deposition testimony. Dkt. 59. After further negotiations Saturday evening and Sunday
`
`morning, Defendants also agreed to withdraw their objections to the disputed Connor exhibits. Ex.
`
`2. Now, just hours later and on the eve of jury selection, Defendants have changed their minds
`
`and object not just to some of Mr. Connor’s testimony, but all of it. Defendants have not even
`
`attempted to show good cause for the untimeliness of their objection, let alone justify their about
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 74 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1463
`
`
`
`face with regard to the parties’ agreements. See Star Creek Ctr., LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., No.
`
`4:17-CV-00607, 2018 WL 1934084, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2018). Moreover, the objections
`
`Defendants raise are completely baseless.
`
`Defendants MIL No. 8, which relates to evidence or testimony regarding the parties’ “other
`
`litigations,” does not preclude Mr. Connor’s testimony. Dkt. 876 at 5-6. The only reference to
`
`litigation in Mr. Connor’s testimony relates to an exhibit, which has been pre-admitted for trial, in
`
`which Intel employees noted their awareness of Alacritech’s litigation with Microsoft and the
`
`license that arose from it. Connor Tr. at 117:10-17. In other parts of his testimony, Mr. Connor
`
`addresses other evidence relating to his awareness of Alacritech and its patent portfolio. E.g., id.
`
`at 110:2-7; 110:24-111:15; 111:18-20. Such testimony is highly relevant to central issues in this
`
`trial, such as when and how Intel became aware of Alacritech’s portfolio, and does not fall within
`
`the scope of Defendants’ MIL No. 8.1 The probative value of Mr. Connor’s designated testimony,
`
`and the corresponding pre-admitted exhibits, far outweighs any risk of prejudice Defendants
`
`suggest exists. Further, any risk of prejudice that does exist pales in comparison to the actual and
`
`certain prejudice Alacritech will suffer if Mr. Connor’s testimony, which the parties previously
`
`agreed upon, is excluded only hours before it was set to be presented to the jury. Now is the time
`
`to try this case, not reopen designation negotiations the parties already resolved, Alacritech relied
`
`on, and Defendants now seek to renege.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Such testimony also provides reasonable “context” regarding Alacritech’s litigation and
`license with Microsoft, which the Court explicitly permitted in ruling on Defendants’ MIL No. 8.
`Dkt. 876 at 5-6.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 74 Filed 10/16/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1464
`
`Dated: October 16, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Mack
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`California State Bar No. 228222
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
`Brian E. Mack
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`California State Bar No. 275086
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`jw@wsfirm.com
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`Texas State Bar No. 24053063
`claire@wsfirm.com
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`1507 Bill Owens Parkway
`Longview, Texas 75604
`Telephone: (903) 757-6400
`Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Alacritech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP Document 74 Filed 10/16/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1465
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with notice of the filing of this sealed document
`
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a) on October 16, 2023, and a copy
`
`of this sealed document, in its entirety, via electronic mail. All counsel who are not deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service are being served by U.S. first-class mail.
`
`/s/ Brian E. Mack
`Brian E. Mack
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`