Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 3:2014cv00757 - Document 735 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANTS' MOTION TOSUPPLEMENT DEFENDANTS' WITNESS LIST 677 . For theforegoing reasons, the motion has been denied (see ORDER, 692 ). SEE OPINION FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 01/27/2016. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NVIDIA Corporation Doc. 735 JAN 28 2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLL'^ ' FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:14cv757 NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter SUPPLEMENT before DEFENDANTS' foregoing reasons, No. is the WITNESS Court LIST on DEFENDANTS' (Docket the motion has been denied No. MOTION 677). For TO the (see ORDER, Docket 692). BACKGROUND An important issue in this case is whether the defendant, NVIDIA Corporation ("NVIDIA")^ is liable for pre-suit damages if it is found patents. NVIDIA A to key have component controlled Manufacturing Co. No. 602) its 2015, that, ^ The other defendants. LLC, of the that 6,287,902 and determination supplier, Taiwan 8,252,675 is whether Semiconductor ('^TSMC") . On December 16, (Docket infringed the Court issued a inter alia, Old Micro, outlined Inc. Memorandum Opinion the kind of proof and Velocity Holdings, have been dismissed upon agreement of the parties. Dockets.Justia.com that could be manufacturer used of patents-in-suit 2015, the Samsung a in to product this Electronics Pretrial Order discovery provided by Interrogatory granted by Order ("January 15 10 that Co., to (Docket entered on That NVIDIA alleged (''Samsung") its two December on the infringe to Thereafter, Ltd. controls 29, moved was to to add NVIDIA's No. 610). January Order also be used 2016 of the trial. response to motion was (Docket contained amend at Samsung's 15, to designations that wanted Order). is supplement NVIDIA Samsung No. whether action. Final Specifically, show the No. 659) following provisions: If the Defendants perceive that the granting of this motion and the adding of the Answer [to Interrogatory No. 10] to the matters that will be received in evidence necessitate, on their part, the addition of other designations or of other evidence, it is further ORDERED that: (i) they shall ... file a motion to that effect, therein identifying specifically the proposed additional evidence or designation, and shall file a supporting brief explaining the need for the addition sought in the motion. A briefing scheduled additional designations. was established for submission of Oral argument was heard on January 19, 2016. In response to that authorization in the January 15 Order, NVIDIA filed President of a motion Operations, seeking Debora to add Shoquist, its as Executive a witness Vice to testify about the statements that were made in NVIDIA's response to Interrogatory No. 10 and the context for the response. DISCUSSION Samsung Inds., P. Inc., 16(e) prevent 203 injustice. witness. 1222 of the Both Those factors test (lOth Cir. Final and that parties appropriate Final the a injustice, motion to amend the a under amendment manifest provides that, F.2d 1202, permits manifest Koch contends in 2000), Pretrial NVIDIA agree measure Koch that for Fed. Order has the 'Ml) prejudice the party opposing trial of the issue; party to cure any prejudice; (3) (2) or Koch R. Civ. only not v. Shoquist as surprise case, Indus., the Inc., proposed 203 F.2d amendment not involve the addition of a of a new witness to address to disruption to the orderly and at the 1222. Of Final new issue, an to the ability of that bad faith by the party seeking to modify the order." Koch in NVIDIA's efficient trial of the case by inclusion of the new issue; (4) to shown decision assessing Pretrial Order to add Ms. are: v. course, Pretrial in and Koch this Order does but rather the addition existing issue. Nonetheless, both parties agree that the Koch analysis applies here. 1. Whether There Is Surprise Or Prejudice The record addition of Ms. is clear that Shoquist as a Samsung was surprised by the potential witness because she had never been disclosed, under Fed. R. knowledgeable person on any issue. Civ. P. 26(a), NVIDIA provided its as a initial disclosures under Rule 26(a) and provided three updates thereto, and Ms. not Shoquist's To the contrary, who were name did the persons identified to appear Fed. R. when testify Civ. NVIDIA was P. 30(b) (6), between relationship NVIDIA about the called a and and agreements with that company. person to testify, not Ms. any of the updates. identified in the updated response TSMC and NVIDIA was John Montrym and Dr. Further, on relationship between James Chen. upon witness TSMC, to designate, to testify including the under on the contracts Dr. Chen was designated as the Shoquist. Finally, at oral argument, NVIDIA's counsel acknowledged that there are four witnesses who are to testify tendered. On about this the topic record, for it which is Mr. clear Shoquist that is Samsung now was surprised by the naming of Ms. Shoquist. Also, addition disclosed it of appears that Samsung testimony from a as pertinent to will witness the be whose issue of prejudiced by identity was whether the never NVIDIA has control over TSMC sufficient to call into play the obligation of NVIDIA for pre-suit damages. See U.S.C. ยงยง 287(b). Having taken depositions of the Rule 30(b)(6) deponents and the other people who have Samsung has prepared its case, and knowledge of the topic, granting this motion would require Samsung to take depositions January 21, on eve of trial (jury selection is to occur 2016 and the trial is to start on January 25, on 2016). The tendering of a never-before identified witness on this topic prejudices Samsung. 2. Whether The Prejudice Can Be Cured At this stage of the proceedings, perceive how the prejudice of having a witness brought to the Court could allow fore it of difficult to previously unidentified can be cured. deposition is that It is true that the person and that that process would provide some ability to cross-examine the witness. However, because discovery is closed, Samsung would not be able to pursue additional paths of discovery that her testimony might reveal. Nor would the proximity of trial allow for such a course. 3. Whether The Amendment Would Disrupt An Orderly And Efficient Trial The keystone preparation for of this an efficient trial has been Commencement of the trial is only a disrupt the orderly and trial efficient is preparation underway for some and time. few days away and it would conduct of the trial to require adjustment of the trial preparations to accommodate the testimony of this new witness on this topic. 4. Whether NVIDIA Acted In Bad Faith Samsung contends that NVIDIA has acted in bad faith because it is identifying effective make as she such a a witness is in to replace providing conclusion. The others testimony. record who may not The that, reflects Court in be cannot response to the provision in the Order granting NVIDIA the opportunity to add a previously assessed whether case good in sworn-to it needed faith to interrogatory another the response, witness Court. and This NVIDIA presented factor its therefore certainly does not cut against NVIDIA in the Koch analysis. Although not one of the Koch factors that are considered when assessing whether not allowing the witness to be added will work a manifest injustice, it seems necessary to assess impact on NVIDIA of a decision denying its motion. shows that denial of the motion will not the The record adversely affect NVIDIA. NVIDIA acknowledges (and definitely two) issue of control as suit damages that whom it issue. there are will call it perhaps to four testify nothing previously that was about the is presented in the context of the pre- And, the at oral argument on counsel for NVIDIA candidly acknowledged that Ms. say witnesses not to identified witnesses. be presented Under the motion, Shoquist would by these other circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that denial of the motion will prejudice NVIDIA. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, that amendment prevent manifest DEFENDANTS' It of is the Final injustice, WITNESS LIST and because NVIDIA has not shown Pretrial DEFENDANTS' {Docket No. 677} Order is MOTION necessary TO SUPPLEMENT has been denied. so ORDERED. /s/ /2^ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Date: January 27, 2016 to
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
