NEC Corporation v. Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 11 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

NEC CORPORATION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00720-JRG
§
ANKER INNOVATIONS TECHNOLOGY _ §
CO., LTD. and ANKER INNOVATIONS §
LTD. (d/b/a “eufy’”), §
§
Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above-captioned case on August 27, 2026
regarding pending pretrial motions, a motion in limine (“MIL”), and disputed exhibits between
Plaintiff NEC Corp. (“NEC”) and Defendants Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. and Anker
Innovations Ltd. (“Anker”) (together, the “Parties”). (Dkt. Nos. 113-121, 180, 215, and 216.)
This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings on the pretrial motions, MIL, and disputed exhibits
as announced from the bench and read into the record, including additional instructions that were
given to the Parties. While this Order summarizes the Court’s rulings as announced into the record
during the Pretrial Conference, this Order in no way limits or constrains such rulings from the
bench. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of the ’526 Patent
(Dkt. No. 113)

The Motion was DENIED.

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of the ’635 Patent
(Dkt. No. 114)

The Motion was DENIED.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

2
3. 	Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Weissman (Dkt.
No. 115)
The Motion was DENIED. 	However, the Court ORDERED that Dr. Weissman is
precluded from offering any joint enterprise opinion.
4. 	Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Willful or Indirect
Infringement, No Post-Suit Willful Infringement, and No Infringement of the ’995
and ’240 Patents (Dkt. No. 116)
The Motion was DENIED.
Regarding the willful and induced infringement portions of this Motion, NEC accuses
Anker of willfully and indirectly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 10,037,467 (the “’467 Patent”),
10,999,635 (the “’635 Patent”), and 11,210,526 (the “’526 Patent”) based on a pre-suit letter NEC
dated June 3, 2024. 	The pre-suit letter (Dkt. No. 116-2) identifies three (3) asserted patents as
being infringed, along with approximately seventy (70) other patents.
Anker argues it is entitled to summary judgment of no pre-suit willful and induced
infringement because NEC has no evidence that Anker had knowledge of any alleged infringement
of the ’467, ’635, and ’526 Patents or that it intended to infringe those patents. NEC argues that
after hearing trial testimony elicited by both sides, the jury may agree with Anker that it was
justified in not responding to NEC’s letter or conducting any diligence regarding NEC’s
accusations of infringement, or it might not.
The Court found that material fact disputes existed precluding a grant of summary
judgment for pre-suit willful and induced infringement. Likewise, the Court found that material
fact disputes precluded summary judgment of no post-suit willful infringement.
5. 	Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Jim W. Bergman (Dkt. No. 117)
The Motion was GRANTED IN PART. The Court struck the portions of Mr. Bergman’s
report that rely on the struck apportionment opinions of Dr. Madisetti.
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Court ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendants may serve supplemental expert
reports regarding struck apportionment analysis as follows. 	Plaintiff may serve a supplemental
report for both Dr. Madisetti and Mr. Bergman only addressing struck apportionment issues by
September 3, 2026. The Defendants are permitted to serve rebuttal reports to these supplements
by September 10, 2026.
The Court ORDERED that the Parties may file supplemental motions regarding struck
apportionment analysis as follows. 	The Defendants may file motions to strike Plaintiff’s
supplemental reports by September 8, 2026. Plaintiff’s responses to any supplemental motions to
strike filed by Defendants shall be filed by September 14, 2026. 	Plaintiff similarly may file
motions to strike Defendants’ rebuttal reports, but it must file by September 16, 2026. Defendants’
responses to the Plaintiff’s motions to strike are not to be filed later than September 21, 2026. Any
such filing shall be limited to no more than five (5) pages long.
The Motion was otherwise DENIED.
6. 	Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of the ’467 Patent
(Dkt. No. 118)
The Motion was DENIED.
7. 	Plaintiff NEC Corporation’s Motion to Strike and Exclude Mr. de la Iglesia’s
Untimely Claim Construction Positions and Opinions Relating to Proposed Non-
Infringing Alternatives (Dkt. No. 119)
The Motion was GRANTED IN PART. For Mr. de la Iglesia’s noninfringement report,
the Court ORDERED that the following words are deleted from the last sentence in paragraph
220: “the definition of,” such that the sentence now reads “and the specification thus support tabs
as being visible . . . .” 	The Court also ORDERED that the witness not opine to the jury on
prosecution history or the process of prosecuting patents absent leave of Court.
The Motion was otherwise DENIED.
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
8. 	Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement on the ’814 Patent
(Dkt. No. 120)
The Motion was DENIED.
9. 	Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Madisetti (Dkt. No.
121)
The Motion was GRANTED IN PART. The Court struck Dr. Madisetti’s apportionment
analysis in paragraphs 1316–1324 in his opening report, but granted leave to supplement such
apportionment opinions in accordance with the schedule discussed above.
The Motion was otherwise DENIED.
10. 	Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 180)
The Motion was GRANTED. The Court explained that Plaintiff may seek leave from the
Court to advance evidence implicating this MIL.
11. 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Strike 	Plaintiff’s 	Amended 	Infringement 	Contentions
Pursuant to L.P.R. 3-6(a) (Dkt. No. 215)
The Motion was DENIED.
12. 	Defendants’ Supplemental Motions for Summary Judgment of No Infringement on
the ’814 Patent, Motion to Exclude the Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Madisetti,
and Further Briefing in Support of Defendants’ Pending Motions to Exclude Opinions
of Dr. Madisetti and Mr. Bergman (Dkt. No. 216)
The Motion was DENIED. 	However, the Court ORDERED that Dr. Madisetti is
precluded from offering any joint enterprise opinion.
13. 	Parties’ Exhibit Disputes
NEC’s exhibits in categories 2 and 7 were PRE-ADMITTED, subject to any conditions
made in the record; exhibits in categories 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were NOT PRE-ADMITTED. (See
Ex. 1 infra; Dkt. No. 232 (transcript).) For the exhibits cited in NEC category 6, the Court clarified
that an expert may rely on such exhibits if appropriately used in a demonstrative even though they
are not pre-admitted.
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Anker’s exhibits in categories 2, 3, and 4 were NOT PRE-ADMITTED. (See Ex. 1 infra;
Dkt. No. 232 (transcript).) However, for the exhibits cited in Anker category 3, the Court similarly
clarified that an expert may rely on such exhibits if appropriately used in a demonstrative even
though they are not pre-admitted.
The Parties are ORDERED to jointly produce a list of all pre-admitted exhibits and
promptly send the same to the Court via the Courtroom Deputy. Such list shall accurately reflect
the results of the Court’s rulings during this portion of the pre-trial process.
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 11 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

Exhibit 1

1
From: Eric Findlay <efindlay@findlaycraft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 11:55 AM
To: Kevin Stewart <Kevin_Stewart@txed.uscourts.gov>
Cc: Vann Pearce <vpearce@orrick.com>; Christopher J. Higgins <chiggins@orrick.com>; Alison T. Gelsleichter
<AGelsleichter@mayerbrown.com>; Anker-NEC_OHS <Anker-NEC_OHS@orrick.com>; US-CLIENT-NEC-Anker-Service
<NEC-Anker-Service@mayerbrown.com>; Kelly Tidwell <kbt@texarkanalaw.com>; Saqib Siddiqui
<SSiddiqui@mayerbrown.com>; Geoff Culbertson <gpc@texarkanalaw.com>; John Augelli <jaugelli@orrick.com>; Rahul
Gupta <Rahul_Gupta@txed.uscourts.gov>; James Cowan <James_Cowan@txed.uscourts.gov>; Christine Akagi
<Christine_Akagi@txed.uscourts.gov>; Andrea Brunson <Andrea_Brunson@txed.uscourts.gov>
Subject: RE: NEC v. Anker, No. 2:24-cv-720 (August 27 Pre Trial Conference)
CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
Mr. Stewart,
On behalf of the Parties, please see the completed tables below in preparation of Thursday’s Pretrial
Conference:
Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions
*The Parties note that given the sub-topics addressed in certain motions, the Parties may change a
particular assignment for the argument and will inform the Court of the same tomorrow.
Pending Motions
Group
No.
Group 	Dkt.
No.
Filing Party 	Motion 	Plaintiff’s
Arguing
Attorney
Defendants’
Arguing
Attorney
1
Motions for
Summary
Judgment
113 	Defendants 	Motion for Summary Judgment
of No Infringement of the ’526
Patent
Tariq Javed 	John Augelli
114 	Defendants 	Motion for Summary Judgment
of No Infringement on the ’635
Patent
Séké Godo 	Chris Higgins
116 	Defendants 	Motion for Summary Judgment
of No Pre-Suit Willful or Indirect
Infringement
Amanda
Streff
Bonner
Rest on
Papers
118 	Defendants 	Motion for Summary Judgment
of No Infringement on the ’467
Patent
Saqib
Siddiqui
Vann Pearce
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
120 	Defendants 	Motion for Summary Judgment
of No Infringement on the ’814
Patent
Sora Ko 	Vann Pearce
216 	Defendants 	Supplemental Motions for
Summary Judgment of No
Infringement on the ’814 Patent
and to Exclude Related
Opinions
Sora Ko 	Vann Pearce
2
DaubertMotions
/ Motions to
Strike
115 	Defendants 	Motion to Strike and Exclude
Opinions of Dr. Weissman
Courtney
Krawice
Chris Higgins
121 	Defendants 	Motion to Strike and Exclude
Expert Opinions of Dr. Madisetti
Saqib
Siddiqui
Eric Findlay
and Rose Sun
117 	Defendants 	Motion to Exclude Expert
Opinions of Jim W. Bergman
Tariq Javed
(claim
construction
opinions)
Saqib
Siddiqui
(Non-
Infringing
Alternatives)
Eric Findlay
119 	Plaintiff 	Motion to Strike and Exclude
Mr. De La Iglesias Opinions
Courtney
Krawice
(common
issues as
Dkt. No.
115)
Saqib
Siddiqui /
Tariq Javed
(unique
issues)
Vann Pearce
and Chris
Higgins
215 	Defendants 	Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
Amended Infringement
Contentions
Saqib
Siddiqui
Rose Sun
Anker’s Motion in Limine
Motions in Limine
Dkt. No. 	Filing Party 	Motion 	Plaintiff’s
Arguing
Attorney
Defendant’s
Arguing Attorney
180 	Defendants 	Motion to preclude NEC from introducing
irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence and
testimony about its AI and video surveillance
products that do not practice the Asserted
Patents
Geoff
Culbertson
Rose Sun
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Exhibit Objections
Buckets of Anker’s Exhibit Objections
# 	Exhibit
Bucket
Name
Exhibit Number(s) & Title
Objection(s)
(e.g., “Hearsay”
or “Relevance”)
Plaintiff’s
Arguing
Attorney
Defendants’
Arguing
Attorney
1 	NEC Press
Releases and
Products
PX-0014, PX-0015, PX-0016, PX-0042,
PX-0043
MIL, Relevance,
Prejudice
Geoff
Culbertson
Rose Sun
2 	Improper
Compilations
and Foreign
Websites
PX-0004 (Anker Accused Product
Schematics), PX-0005 (Anker Accused
Product User Guides and Quick Start
Guides), PX-0006 (eufy.com webpages)
Relevance,
Improper
Compilation of
50+ exhibits,
Violation of
Standing Order
on Number of
Exhibits
Saqib
Siddiqui
Eric Findlay
3 	NEC Counsel
Letter to
Anker
Counsel
Regarding
Service of
Process
PX-0001 (2024-10-29 Letter from S.
Siddiqui to Eufy/Anker)
Irrelevant
correspondence
between
litigation
counsel, Court
MIL #1.
Geoff
Culbertson
Rose Sun
4 	Customer
Feedback
PX-0009 (Anker Accused Product
Testing)
Foreign
Language,
Hearsay,
Inaccurate
Description,
Multiple
Documents
Combined
Together Into
One Exhibit
Courtney
Krawice
Chris Higgins
5 	Expert
Report
Screenshots
PX-0011, PX-0012, PX-0013 	Not evidence 	Courtney
Krawice
Eric Findlay
6 	Third Party
Websites
about Third
Party
Products
PX-0018 through PX-0025, PX-0036
through PX-0039, PX-0044 through PX-
0046
Hearsay,
Authentication,
Relevance
Geoff
Culbertson
John Augelli
7 	Third Party
FCC
Documents
PX-0002 (FCC Test Reports Model Nos.
T86P2, T8134, T8170, T8425)
Authentication,
Hearsay
Geoff
Culbertson
John Augelli
9 	Third Party
Websites
About Anker
PX-0030 through PX-0035 	Hearsay,
Authentication,
Relevance
Geoff
Culbertson
John Augelli
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Buckets of NEC’s Exhibit Objections
# Exhibit
Bucket
Name
Exhibit Number(s) & Title
Objection(s)
(e.g.,
“Hearsay” or
“Relevance”)
Plaintiff’s
Arguing
Attorney
Defendants’
Arguing Attorney
1 	Anker’s
Total
Number of
Exhibits
Anker’s current Exhibit List has 100+
exhibits but Anker has indicated that it
will be filing a revised Exhibit List prior to
the Pre-Trial Conference, so the parties
will continue to meet and confer in an
effort to narrow and/or streamline
disputes.
Violation of the
Court’s
Amended
Standing Order
on Number and
Use of Exhibits
(Party Exhibit
List shall
contain no more
than 30 exhibits)
Geoff
Culbertson
Eric Findlay
2 	NEC
negotiation
documents
and term
sheets with
non-parties
77 Total Exhibits in the current Anker
Exhibit List:
Anker proposes to combine these as
DX-0709 through DX-717 in the revised
exhibit list
DX-575 (Proposed Term Sheet between
Ecobee and NEC), DX-576 (Proposed
Term Sheet between Lorex and NEC),
DX-577 (Proposed Term Sheet between
Reolink and NEC), DX-578 (Proposed
Term Sheet between Wyze and NEC),
DX-579, DX-580, DX-581, DX-613, DX-
614, DX-615, DX-616, DX-617, DX-618,
DX-619, DX-620, DX-621, DX-622, DX-
623, DX-624, DX-625, DX-626, DX-627,
DX-628, DX-629, DX-630, DX-631, DX-
632, DX-633, DX-634, DX-635, DX-636,
DX-637, DX-638, DX-639, DX-640, DX-
641, DX-642, DX-643, DX-644, DX-645,
DX-646, DX-647, DX-648, DX-649, DX-
650, DX-651, DX-652, DX-653, DX-654,
DX-655, DX-656, DX-657, DX-658, DX-
659, DX-660, DX-661, DX-662, DX-663,
DX-664, DX-665, DX-666, DX-667, DX-
668, DX-669, DX-670, DX-671, DX-672,
DX-673, DX-675, DX-676, DX-677, DX-
678, DX-679, DX-680, DX-681, DX-682,
DX-683.
Compromise &
Offers to
Compromise
(Federal Rule of
Evidence 408),
Relevance
Geoff
Culbertson
Eric Findlay
3 	Background
Prior Art
17 Total Exhibits:
DX-129, DX-130, DX-131, DX-132, DX-
138, DX-139, DX-140, DX-141, DX-142,
DX-157, DX-174, DX-176, DX-177, DX-
Violation of
Court MIL No. 4
(prior art that is
not disclosed in
Geoff
Culbertson/
Courtney
Krawice
John Augelli
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
178, DX-179, DX-180, DX-181 (U.S. Pre-
grant Pub. No. 2015/0199617).
a specific
combination set
forth in any
party’s expert
report or
invalidity
contentions)
4 	Documents
related to
no longer
asserted
’995 Patent
and Anker’s
Motion to
Compel
Documents
re Patent
Sale to IP
Wave which
was denied
(Dkt. No.
112)
3 Total Exhibits:
DX-524 (Patent Assignment Cover Sheet
from NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. to IP
Wave Pte Ltd.), DX-525 (Patent
Assignment Agreement from NEC Asia
Pacific Pte Ltd. to IP Wave Pte Ltd.), DX-
690 (Patent Assignment from NEC Asia
Pacific Pte Ltd. to IP Wave Pte Ltd.).
Violation of
Court MIL No. 1
(discovery
disputes or
dropped claims)
Geoff
Culbertson
Chris Higgins
Electronic copies of the Expert Reports can be found in the Dropbox link below:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/hcl0wog0ycyd46apsg6on/AClPeNrNMs1NTAoGPEEeQWo?rlkey=iir7ljh
mvz5t4gd2f1lz1rqpj&dl=0
Let us know if the Court needs anything further.
Best,
Eric
Eric H. Findlay
Findlay Craft, P.C.
7270 Crosswater Avenue
Tyler, Texas 75703
(903) 534-1100 M: (903) 571-6963
www.findlaycraft.com
Case 2:24-cv-00720-JRG Document 268 Filed 10/09/26 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>