Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 837 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00290-NBF MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., Hon. Nora B. Fischer and MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendants. MARVELL’S OPPOSITION TO CMU’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, POST-JUDGMENT ROYALTIES, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 837 Filed 03/25/13 Page 2 of 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2 I. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ...........................2 A. CMU Fails To Demonstrate Any Irreparable Harm ................................................2 1. CMU Faces No Irreparable Commercial Harm As It Does Not Compete With Marvell ................................................................................2 2. CMU Has Not Shown That Its Patents Drive Consumer Demand ..............3 B. CMU Has Not Demonstrated That Monetary Compensation Is Inadequate ...........5 1. CMU Has Demonstrated Its Willingness To License The Patents ..............5 2. CMU’s Concern About “Risk Of Non-Payment” Is Baseless .....................6 C. The Balance Of Hardships Weighs Against An Injunction .....................................9 D. An Injunction Would Be Contrary To The Public Interest ....................................10 E. CMU’s Proposed Injunction Is Vague, Overbroad And Fails to Include A Transition Period ....................................................................................................12 F. CMU Should Post Security to Protect Marvell From A Wrongful Injunction ...............................................................................................................13 II. THIS COURT SHOULD DEFER CONSIDERATION OF AN ONGOING ROYALTY UNTIL MARVELL’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ARE RESOLVED AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS HELD .......................................14 III. IN LIGHT OF CHANGED ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES, ANY ONGOING ROYALTY SHOULD BE SET WELL BELOW THE $0.50 RATE AWARDED FOR PAST INFRINGEMENT ..........................................................................................16 A. CMU Does Not Compete Commercially And Has Failed To License the Patents-in-Suit ........................................................................................................16 B. Marvell’s Profit Margins Provide No Basis For An Ongoing Royalty .................17 C. Marvell’s Non-Infringing Alternatives Counsel In Favor of a Reduced Royalty ...................................................................................................................18 D. There Is No Basis For A Ongoing Royalty Greater Than $0.50 ...........................18 ii Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 837 Filed 03/25/13 Page 3 of 28 IV. THE COURT SHOULD DEFER CMU’S REQUEST FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES ..............................................................................20 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................20 iii Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 837 Filed 03/25/13 Page 4 of 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commn'cs., Inc., 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................1, 5, 10 Adams Arms, Inc. v. Sig Sauer, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-146-T-27TGW, 2010 WL 3119777 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2010) ............................5 Additive Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 986 F.2d 476 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..................................................................................................13 Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 554 (D. Del. 2008) ...........................................................................................5 Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................16, 19 Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 901 (N.D. Ill. 2012) ....................................................................................9,11 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................2 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5 Belden Techs. Inc. v. Superior Essex Commc'ns. LP, 802 F. Supp. 2d 555 (D. Del. 2011) .........................................................................................10 Boston Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 838 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D. Del. 2012) ...................................................................................16, 19 Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Org. v. Buffalo Tech. Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .......................................................................................3 Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Org. v. Buffalo Tech. Inc., 542 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................3 Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D. Del. 2010) ...........................................................................................5 Custom Designs of Nashville, Inc. v. Alsa Corp., 727 F. Supp. 2d 719 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) ....................................................................................9 Cybermedia, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 19 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 1998) .....................................................................................14 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................................1, 2, 3, 9, 11 iv Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 837 Filed 03/25/13 Page 5 of 28 Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l., Inc., No. C 03-1431, 2012 WL 761712 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012) .................................15, 16, 17, 19 Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................12 High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................5 Int'l. Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 383 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................12, 13 Joyal Prods., Inc. v. Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc., CIV. A. 04-5172 JAP, 2009 WL 512156 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2009) ..............................................3 LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-348, 2010 WL 2574059 (E.D. Tex. June 22, 2010) ....................................2, 6, 10 Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 201 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................14 Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 822 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .....................................................................................17 Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:04-CV-211-DF, 2006 WL 2385139 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2006) ..............................10, 15 Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................10 Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 609 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ...................................................................15, 16, 17, 18 Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 440 (D. Del. 2007) ...........................................................................................5 Retractable Techs, Inc. v. Occupational & Med. Innovations, Ltd., 6:08 2010 WL 3199624 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2010) ..................................................................9 Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................9 Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) .................................................................................................................12 Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985)............................................................................................16, 19 Sprint Commc'ns. Co. L.P. v. CAT Commc'ns. Int'l., Inc., 335 F.3d 235 (3d. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................................14 Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d 727 (D. Del. 2009) ...........................................................................................6 v Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 837 Filed 03/25/13 Page 6 of 28 Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................6 Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc., No. 08 cv 1307, 2012 WL 1436569 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2012) .........................................16, 19 Voda v. Cordis Corp., No. CIV-03-1512, 2006 WL 2570614 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 5, 2006) ...........................................5