Nokia Corporation et al v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
Filing
212
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO (1) CLAIMS BASED ON INFERRED INVOICES; AND (2) STATE LAW CLAIMS 6092 6157 in case 3:07-md-01827-SI; 170 179 in case 3:09-cv-05609-SI (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/31/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
/
Case No. C 09-5609 SI
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL No. 1827
This Order Relates To:
11
NOKIA CORPORATION and NOKIA, INC.,
12
13
14
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
TO (1) CLAIMS BASED ON INFERRED
INVOICES; AND (2) STATE LAW
CLAIMS
Plaintiffs,
v.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
15
/
16
Now before the Court is defendants’ joint motion for partial summary judgment on Nokia
17
Corporation and Nokia, Inc.’s (“Nokia”) claims based on inferred invoices and state law claims.
18
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral
19
argument. Having considered the parties’ papers, and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby
20
DENIES defendants’ motion as to Nokia’s claims based on inferred invoices and GRANTS defendants’
21
motion as to Nokia’s state law claims. Master Docket Nos. 6092 & 6157; Docket Nos. 170 & 179 in
22
C 09-5609 SI.
23
Defendants contend that Nokia’s claims based on so-called “inferred invoices” lack any
24
evidentiary basis and should therefore be barred. Focusing on the reply report of Nokia’s damages
25
expert, Dr. Helen Jenkins, defendants emphasize that “[a]pproximately $11.6 million of the $52.3
26
million in claimed damages . . . is based on alleged purchases that Dr. Jenkins ‘infers’ from [the] . . .
27
‘mobile device volumes,’” contained in Nokia’s annual 20-F reports to the Securities and Exchange
28
1
Commission (“SEC”). See Motion at 5. Defendants assert that Dr. Jenkins rejected Nokia’s own
2
purchase data in favor of shipment data contained in the SEC reports, based on the “entirely speculative
3
conclusion” that the former is incomplete. See id. at 6. Arguing that Nokia thus lacks any evidence to
4
substantiate its inferred invoice claims, defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate.
The Court disagrees. Dr. Jenkins’ finding that Nokia’s available LCD purchase data for years
6
2001 to 2004 is incomplete and her corresponding estimate of these purchases based, in part, on Nokia’s
7
SEC reports, is grounded in facts. See, e.g., Guidroz-Brault v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 254 F.3d 825, 831
8
(9th Cir. 2001) (“[I]n the context of a motion for summary judgment, an expert must back up [her]
9
opinion with facts.”). Nokia points to evidence showing that Dr. Jenkins first “examined and tested
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
whether [Nokia’s] invoice records reflected all of [its] LCD purchases.” See Declaration of Dr. Helen
11
E. Jenkins (“Jenkins Decl.”) at ¶ 5. From her review of the LCD invoice data contained in Nokia’s R3
12
database, Dr. Jenkins noted that LCD purchases were “very low in the earlier years of the conspiracy
13
compared with the later years: purchases were fewer than 50 million units in 2001, and grew to over 300
14
million units in 2007.” Id. Finding this level of growth “questionable,” Dr. Jenkins “used other sources
15
of data to check whether the Nokia invoice dataset reflected all of Nokia’s LCD purchases,” including
16
Nokia’s “mobile device shipment data” contained in it SEC Reports. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. “Relying on the fact
17
that Nokia must purchase at least one LCD to produce a mobile device,” Dr. Jenkins compared the LCD
18
invoice data and the shipment data. Based on this comparison, she concluded that “the invoice dataset
19
does not contain all records of all LCD purchases.” Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.
20
Defendants are incorrect that Dr. Jenkins’ conclusion is based on inadmissible hearsay. See
21
Motion at 9-10. Her opinion that Nokia’s LCD invoice data is “incomplete” is based on her comparison
22
of that data and mobile phone shipment data. Only in her quest to “understand the source of the
23
discrepancies identified by the comparison,” did she and her team conduct a “series of discussions” with
24
Nokia’s Head of Display Sourcing, the Display Purchasing Manager, and a Senior Systems Specialist.
25
Id. at ¶ 9. From those discussions, Dr. Jenkins learned that Nokia had upgraded its IT systems in 2004,
26
rendering “the [LCD purchase] data in the [old R3 database] either not available or not reliable.” Id.
27
at ¶ 10. Satisfied with her conclusion that Nokia’s LCD invoice data is incomplete, Dr. Jenkins next
28
set out to estimate the value of the missing invoices. She did this by analyzing the data available to her,
2
1
including Nokia’s SEC reports. Id. at ¶ 20. Dr. Jenkins used the SEC reports to calculate the number
2
of mobile phone handsets Nokia shipped for certain years, and then inferred the number of LCDs
3
purchased by Nokia. Id.
Defendants argue that the SEC reports cannot support Nokia’s inferred invoice claims because
5
“they lack any evidence of these supposed transactions, including the price paid, the product purchased,
6
the identities of the sellers and buyers, the date when the purchases occurred, and the geographical
7
locations where the purchases were made.” Motion at 12; see also Reply at 7. However, the Court finds
8
that there is evidence from which a reasonable jury can infer that the SEC reports reflect Nokia’s
9
shipment of mobile devices containing LCDs that it purchased from defendants and their alleged co-
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
4
conspirators during the conspiracy period. See, e.g., Jenkins Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 2.69 (based on the available
11
invoice data, defendants sold over 95 percent of the LCDs purchased by Nokia). While defendants
12
dispute the sufficiency of the evidence that provides a basis for Nokia’s inferred invoice claims, such
13
disputes are not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment. Defendants will have the opportunity
14
to challenge Dr. Jenkins’ opinions through cross-examination at trial. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
15
defendants’ motion as to Nokia’s claims based on inferred invoices.
16
Defendants also seek summary judgment on Nokia’s state law claims. Nokia has indicated that
17
it does not oppose that part of defendants’ motion at this time. See Opp’n at 8, n. 1. Thus, the Court
18
GRANTS defendants’ motion as to Nokia’s state law claims.
19
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’
20
motion as to Nokia’s claims based on inferred invoices and GRANTS defendants’ motion as to Nokia’s
21
state law claims. Master Docket Nos. 6092 & 6157; Docket Nos. 170 & 179 in C 09-5609 SI.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: August 31, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
