Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 10 Page ID

#:16901

1 Kenneth G. Parker (State Bar No. 182911)

ken.parker@haynesboone.com
2 Jason T. Lao (State Bar No. 288161)
jason.lao@haynesboone.com
3 Marco A. Pulido (State Bar No. 308074)
marco.pulido@haynesboone.com
4 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700
5 Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (949) 202-3000
6 Facsimile: (949) 202-3001
7 William H. Frankel (pro hac vice)
wfrankel@crowell.com
8 Tadashi Horie (pro hac vice)
thorie@crowell.com
9 Andrew S. McElligott (pro hac vice)
amcelligott@crowell.com
10 CROWELL AND MORING LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 3600
11 Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telephone: (312) 321-4200
12 Facsimile: (312) 321-4299
13 Attorneys for Plaintiff
PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION
14 f/k/a PANASONIC CORPORATION
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
PANASONIC HOLDINGS CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM
18 CORPORATION,
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC
19 Plaintiff, HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S
v. TRIAL BRIEF
20
GETAC TECHNOLOGY [L.R. 16-10]
21 CORPORATION and GETAC, INC.,
[REDACTED VERSION OF
22 Defendants. DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE
FILED UNDER SEAL]
23
Complaint Filed: June 5, 2019
24 Trial Date: May 31, 2022
25
26
27
28

PLAINITFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF

 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 10 Page ID
#:16902

1 TRIAL BRIEF
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3
4 These were the words of the President of Getac
5 North America as Defendants Getac, Inc. and Getac Technology Corporation
6 (“Getac”) continued their campaign of stealing Panasonic’s designs. Panasonic’s
7 rugged detachable laptop, the CF-33, was at least the third product Getac copied in
8 some respect, and Panasonic has had enough. So Panasonic brought this case and is
9 taking it to trial, asserting infringement of three design patents. One example of that
10 infringement is U.S. Patent No. D766,232 (the “D’232 patent”). Figure A below
11 compares Figure 19 of the D’232 patent (left) to Getac’s K120 product (right), clearly
12 demonstrating Getac’s copying:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Figure A
22
23 Unable to deny that it intentionally copied Panasonic’s designs, Getac has taken
24 refuge in technical and legal assertions to attack the patents protecting the designs and
25 drive up the cost of this case. This Court granted summary judgment as to several of
26 those assertions. [Dkt. 281.] The issues that remain to be tried are:
27 1. Infringement and alleged invalidity of the three asserted design patents;
28 2. Damages;

1
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 3 of 10 Page ID
#:16903

1 3. Willfulness; and
2 4. Post-trial, Panasonic’s right to a permanent injunction, fees and costs.
3 II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4 A. Background: Panasonic’s Innovation in the Rugged Laptop Market
5 Since 1994, Panasonic has been an innovator in the rugged laptop market.
6 Panasonic’s TOUGHBOOK laptops and TOUGHPAD tablets are designed to operate
7 in the harsh conditions faced by first responders and the military, where reliability is
8 imperative. Panasonic’s earliest rugged devices were “clamshell” devices—laptops
9 with screens connected to keyboards via two hinges that pivot on those hinges to open
10 and close. In 1996, Panasonic introduced a clamshell laptop, its first fully rugged
11 Toughbook, designed to resist dust and humidity and to withstand falls from distinct
12 heights. A few years later, Panasonic expanded into rugged tablets, introducing the
13 first rugged tablet concept in 2001. Starting in 2011, Panasonic began incorporating a
14 common visual language into the design of its computer products, which it referred to
15 as an “octagonal” theme.
16 Panasonic has also developed rugged convertible, or “2-in-1,” computers, which
17 can be used as both traditional laptops and tablets. The CF-18, which Panasonic
18 introduced in 2003, was the first “2-in-1” on the market with a pivotable touchscreen.
19 The screen connected to a single central hinge, allowing it to spin 180 degrees and then
20 fold back onto the keyboard with the screen facing upward, converting the device from
21 a laptop to a tablet. In more recent years, Panasonic has designed detachable
22 notebooks, “2-in-1” devices with screens that can be detached from their keyboards
23 and used as tablets.
24 In November 2015, Panasonic introduced the ten-inch CF-20, the “world’s first
25 fully rugged detachable notebook.” (Dkt. 71, Ex. M.) And in February 2017, Panasonic
26 released the CF-33, a twelve-inch fully rugged detachable notebook. (Dkt. 184-29.)
27
28

2
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 4 of 10 Page ID
#:16904

1 B. The Three Patents-In-Suit

2 1. The D’232 Patent
3 The asserted D’232 Patent claims the
4 ornamental design for a canoe-shaped
5 portable computer cradle with 45-degree
6 raised ends and a pair of vertical rectangular
7 legs that provide pivotable attachment of the
8 cradle to the keyboard. The 45-degree ends
9 evoke the “octagonal” design theme
10 described above. Panasonic filed its
11 application on April 15, 2015, and the patent Figure B – D’232 Patent, Fig. 19
12 issued on September 13, 2016. (See
13 Figure B, right; see also Dkts. 184-3, 184-
14 4)
15 2. The D’998 Patent
16 U.S. Patent No. D756,998 (the
17 “D’998 patent”) claims the ornamental
18 design for a tablet with recessed, 45-degree
19 bottom corners, and encompasses the
Figure C – D’998 Patent, Fig. 3
20 “octagonal” theme described above. It was filed on (SCORE Image)
21 April 15, 2015, and the patent issued on May
22 24, 2016. (See Figure C, right; see also Dkts.
23 184-5, 184-6.)
24 3. The D’634 Patent
25 U.S. Patent No. D785,634 (the “D’634
26 patent”) claims the ornamental design for the
27 internal surfaces and components of a canoe-
28 shaped portable computer cradle with 45- Figure D – D’634 Patent, Fig. 1
(SCORE Image)
3
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 5 of 10 Page ID
#:16905

1 degree raised ends. Like the two other asserted patents, it embodies the “octagonal”
2 design approach. It was filed on August 28, 2015, and issued on May 2, 2017. An
3 illustrative figure of the D’634 patent may be found at Figure D, above right. (See also
4 Dkts. 184-7, 184-8.)
5 C. Panasonic’s Embodied Products
6 The CF-20, released in November 2015, practices Panasonic’s patented design
7 for a tablet with recessed, 45-degree bottom corners (D’998). The CF-20 also practices
8 Panasonic’s patented design for a canoe-shaped cradle with 45-degree upturned ends
9 and a pair of rectangular pivot legs (D’232), and a canoe-shaped cradle interior, also
10 with 45-degree raised ends (D’634). And when the tablet of the CF-20 is connected to
11 the dock, the canoe-shaped cradle covers its recessed bottom corners, creating the
12 appearance of a uniform, edge-to-edge design. In June 2016, Panasonic introduced the
13 Toughpad FZ-A2 (Dkt. 184-30), which practices Panasonic’s patented design for a
14 tablet with recessed, 45-degree bottom corners (D’998).
15 The 12-inch Toughbook® CF-33 (“CF-33”), released the following year, also
16 practices Panasonic’s patented design for a canoe-shaped cradle interior with 45-
17 degree raised ends (D’634).
18 D. Getac’s Copycat Products
19 Getac is a low-cost competitor of Panasonic in the rugged laptop and tablet
20 market and has attempted to compete by copying Panasonic’s patented designs. Its
21 history of copying Panasonic’s designs goes back at least as far as 2008 with the earlier
22 version of the embodying products. In 2003, Panasonic introduced the CF-18 (below,
23 left), the first rugged convertible laptop / tablet on the market with a pivotable
24 touchscreen. After Panasonic had years of commercial success, Getac introduced the
25 similar convertible V100 computer (below, right).
26
27
28

4
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 6 of 10 Page ID
#:16906

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Panasonic CF-18 Getac V100
10
Figure E
11
12
Unfortunately, Getac’s pattern of copying Panasonic’s superior design in the
13
rugged computing market continued. In September 2018, three years after Panasonic
14
released the CF-20 and two years after it released the CF-33, Getac released its K120
15
device. (Dkt. 71, Ex. P.) There is extensive evidence that Getac purposely designed the
16
K120 device to look like the CF-20 and CF-33 devices because Getac recognized
17
Panasonic’s superior design. The first is the appearance of the K120 as compared to
18
the CF-20 and CF-33 devices:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Figure F

5
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 7 of 10 Page ID
#:16907

1 Getac’s obvious and intentional copying was further confirmed by evidence

2 obtained in discovery. Scott Shainman was President of Getac North America (also
3 known as Getac USA) when Panasonic introduced the CF-20. He admits the
4
5 . (Dkt. 183-11 at 1; Dkt. 183-12 at 263:25-
6 266:20
7 (emphasis added))).
8 Shortly after Getac received the product specifications for the 10-inch CF-20
9 and learned of Panasonic’s plans to release the 12-inch CF-33, Getac began developing
10 its copycat, which it described as a “
11 (Dkt. 184-33.) A little over two years later, Getac
12 introduced the 12-inch Getac K120. Just like the CF-20 and the CF-33, and unlike
13 other detachable notebooks of the time, the Getac K120 features a canoe-shaped cradle
14 with 45-degree raised ends and a pair of rectangular pivot legs, and a tablet with
15 recessed, 45-degree bottom corners. And just like Panasonic’s products, the canoe-
16 shaped cradle covers the recessed bottom corners of the tablet when docked, creating
17 the appearance of a clean, edge-to-edge design.
18 Faced with the fact that Getac was poised to launch a second lookalike, Getac’s
19 executives began to get nervous that someone might notice. Getac’s K120 is indeed so
20 similar to Panasonic’s products that, prior to its launch, executives at Getac USA
21 raised concerns about
22 (Exs. Dkt. 183-13 at 1, Dkt. 183-27 at 1.) Mr.
23 Shainman complained to Daniel Lin, the chief product manager at Getac Technology
24 Corporation, that “
25 .” (Dkt. 183-28 at 1.) To try to conceal its intent to copy
26 Panasonic’s design, Getac decided to market the K120 as a “tablet” with an accessory
27 keyboard, even though it was designed as a 2-in-1 device. As Mr. Shainman has
28 testified, “ ”

6
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 8 of 10 Page ID
#:16908

1 (Dkt. 183-12 at 500:2–7.) Mr. Shainman has further admitted that Getac
2
3
4 .” (Id. at 365:18–366:4.) Indeed, Mr. Shainman
5
6 . (Dkt. 183-12 at 462:20–
7 463:10.)
8 But Getac was not done. In June 2019,
9 Getac released the 10-inch UX10 (right),
10 another detachable notebook Getac marketed as
11 a tablet with an accessory keyboard. (Dkt. 184-
12 32) Getac’s employees, including the product
13 manager for the UX10, considered the main
14 difference between Getac’s K120 and UX10 to
15 be their sizes. As Joe DeWenter, a Senior
16 Product Marketing Manager at Getac USA,
17 explained,
Figure G – UX 10
18
19 . (Dkt. 183-14 at 148:23–149:8.) People in the industry recognized the
20 UX10 as “
21 (Ex. M; Dkt. 71, Dkt. 183-18.) Recalling when
22 he first held a prototype for the UX10, Mr. Shainman testified,
23
24 (Dkt. 183-12 at 353:21–354:2.) Mr.
25 Shainman further admitted
26
27 . (Dkt. 183-12 at 462:20–463:10.)
28

7
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 9 of 10 Page ID
#:16909

1 III. Relevant Procedural and Post-Filing History

2 The operative pleadings in this case are Panasonic’s Third Amended Complaint
3 (Dkt. 71) and Getac’s Answer, Affirmative Defense and Counterclaims in response
4 (Dkt. 73). The Court has granted summary judgment in Panasonic’s favor on the Fifth,
5 Eighth, and Twelfth, and Sixteenth Counts of Getac’s Counterclaims and its Fourth
6 and Fifth Affirmative Defenses. [Dkt. 281]
7 IV. Changes From Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Contentions of Facts and Law
8 [Dkt. 239-1]
9 In light of this Court’s grant of summary judgment [Dkt. 281], the following
10 pages and lines of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Contention of Fact and Law [Dkt 239-1]
11 are moot:
12 Pages 5:19-6:24; 8:16-8:26; 25:22-26:15; 27:11-31:10; 44:1-17; 46:24-
13 50:25; 51:23-60:24; 64:8-66:23; 70:13-71:6
14 V. Comments Regarding and Responses to Defendants’ Memorandum of
15 Contentions of Fact and Law [Dkt. 242]
16 A. Moot Portions
17 In light of this Court’s grant of summary judgment [Dkt. 281], the following
18 pages and lines of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Contention of Fact and Law [Dkt 242]
19 are moot:
20 Pages 10:7-12; 11:5-7; 11:14-12:19; 14:10-20; 15:17-19; 15:26-18:20;
21 18:25 (with respect to the D’994 Patent); 19:4-24; 21:11-22
22 VI. Testimony of Scott Shainman
23 Getac’s memorandum L.R. 16-10 Trial Brief improperly seeks (another) belated
24 motion in limine for testimony by Scott Shainman. (Dkt. 338 at 2-4.) Notably, Getac
25 already sought to exclude Mr. Shainman’s testimony in two other motions in limine,
26 which the Court denied. (Dkt. 330 at 1 (denying Getac’s Motion in Limine 1); id. at 3
27 (denying Getac’s Motion in Limine 3.) Panasonic has put Scott Shainman on its
28 witness list, and it intends to call him at trial.

8
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF
 Case 8:19-cv-01118-DOC-DFM Document 339 Filed 05/24/22 Page 10 of 10 Page ID
#:16910

1 With respect to Mr. Shainman’s sworn testimony in this case, he was deposed
2 on September 8, 2022, and Getac terminated the deposition to seek a protective order.
3 Panasonic filed a motion to overrule Getac’s objections and continue the deposition.
4 (Dkt. 153-1). This time, when Mr. Shainman was deposed on January 13, 2021,
5 Magistrate Judge McCormick presided over the deposition, and he ruled on attorney-
6 client privilege objections. Thus, Mr. Shainman’s testimony was already vetted by
7 Judge McCormick over Getac’s counsels’ objections.
8
9 Dated: May 24, 2022 Haynes and Boone, LLP
10
11 By: /s/ Kenneth G. Parker
Kenneth G. Parker
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff
13 PANASONIC HOLDINGS
CORPORATION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9
PLAINTIFF PANASONIC HOLDINGS CORPORATION’S TRIAL BRIEF