Samsung Electronics Co. v. Nvidia Corp.
314 F.R.D. 190
E.D. Va.2016Background
- Samsung sued NVIDIA for infringement of the ’902, ’675, and ’602 patents related to chips made for NVIDIA by TSMC.
- Samsung sought design/manufacture information from TSMC; TSMC was non-responsive, prompting Samsung to rely on Dr. Choe’s reverse engineering tear-downs.
- Samsung and NVIDIA entered a Stipulated Discovery Order exempting expert materials from discovery unless relied upon by the expert.
- Dr. Choe produced a report with numerous reverse engineering images; undisclosed images were later revealed during trial.
- Dr. Choe testified he relied on undisclosed images to form his opinions; NVIDIA obtained those images during trial and raising a possible Rule 37(c) violation.
- Court granted a mistrial on the ’902 and ’675 patents to allow curative expert discovery, while declining to strike Dr. Choe’s testimony or reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Samsung violated Rule 26/Order by nondisclosing relied-on materials | Samsung complied with disclosure obligations; any nondisclosure was inadvertent | NVIDIA was prejudiced; undisclosed materials affected trial | Samsung violated the Stipulated Discovery Order; not harmless or substantially justified |
| Whether the violation requires sanctions under Rule 37(c) and Southern States factors | Violation justified sanctions to protect the process and deter nondisclosure | Sanctions should be limited; potential cure via curative discovery | Violation not harmless or substantially justified; mistrial with limited cost-shifting appropriate |
| What sanctions best remedy the violation while preserving trial justice | Exclude Dr. Choe’s testimony or grant a mistrial | Mistrial too drastic; prefer lesser sanctions | Mistrial with limited cost-shifting chosen as least drastic effective sanction |
| Role of bad faith and deterrence in crafting sanctions | Samsung acted in good faith; counsel unaware of full extent | Non-disclosure requires deterrence and accountability | Good faith but not dispositive; deterrence achieved via mistrial and cost-shifting |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir.2003) (five-factor test for substantial justification and harmlessness under Rule 37(c))
- Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies, AG, 145 F.Supp.2d 721 (E.D. Va.2001) (need for deterrence and leveling evidentiary field in sanctions)
- Campbell v. United States, 470 F. App’x 153 (4th Cir.2012) (expert disclosure should be comprehensive; reports as complete pretrial)
- Zaklit v. Global Linguist Solutions, LLC, 2014 WL 4925780 (E.D. Va.2014) (need for complete disclosure in expert reports)
- Golden Nugget, Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Fishing Co., L.C., 93 F. App’x 530 (4th Cir.2004) (illustrates admissibility of appellate relief with concise record)
- Anderson v. Foundation for Advancement, Educ. and Employment of Am. Indians, 155 F.3d 500 (4th Cir.1998) (four-part sanctions framework for discovery violations)
- Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir.2001) (deterrence and level playing field in sanctions)
- Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., 632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.2011) (federal circuit on standards for sanctions in discovery)