Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16376 Page 1 of 45
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`_________________________________
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM (Lead
`Case); Consolidated with 3:14-cv-01507-
`DMS-BLM
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT WI-LAN INC.’S
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`TESTIMONY OF APPLE EXPERTS
`
`Department: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`REDACTED FOR PUBLIC FILING
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16377 Page 2 of 45
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND PRECLUDE WIMAX ................................ 1
`
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background ............................................................................... 3
`
`
`1.
`
`The Court has rejected Apple’s argument that the claims are
`
`Limited to fixed WiMAX devices three times ........................... 3
`
`
`2.
`
`Apple’s experts offered irrelevant WiMAX opinions ................ 4
`
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Exclude Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s WiMAX
`
`Opinions ................................................................................................ 5
`
` Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s WiMAX opinions are
`1.
`
`irrelevant ..................................................................................... 5
`
` Mr. Tocher is not a qualified expert ........................................... 7
`2.
`
` Mr. Tocher does not apply a reliable methodology .................... 9
`3.
`
`
`C.
`
`The Court Should Preclude “WiMAX” and “Fixed” Arguments at
`
`Trial ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`D.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................... 11
`
`II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE DR. WALKER’S TESTIMONY ON ETSI ....... 11
`
`III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY
`
`REGARDING NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES .............................. 13
`
`
`A.
`
`Statement of Relevant Facts ................................................................ 13
`
`
`1.
`
`The Court directed Apple to identify its NIAs during fact
`
`discovery ................................................................................... 13
`
`
`2.
`
`Apple failed to provide information in depositions .................. 14
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16378 Page 3 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Apple’s experts rely on lay witness opinions not disclosed
`
`during fact discovery ................................................................. 15
`
` Argument ............................................................................................. 17
`B.
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`Apple’s experts improperly rely on speculative lay opinion .... 17
`
`The lay opinions are not predicated upon concrete facts .......... 18
`
`Neither Mr. Kodali nor Mr. Sebeni were disclosed as experts . 20
`
`Apple’s analysis on NIAs was shielded from fact discovery ... 22
`
`
`C.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................... 23
`
`IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY FROM MR.
`
`GUNDERSON ............................................................................................... 23
`
` Argument ............................................................................................. 23
`A.
`
` Mr. Gunderson lacks qualifications on economics or surveys . 23
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`5.
`
`Royalty stacking concerns lack foundation in evidence ........... 25
`
`Patent counting arbitrarily assumes equal patent value ............ 26
`
`Unhelpful licenses should not be admitted to the jury ............. 30
`
`Gratuitous references to irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial events 33
`
`
`B.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-iii-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16379 Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 34
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................. 2, 6, 10
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160337, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160337
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2013)............................................................................... 31, 32
`
`Avago Techs. General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. AsusTek Computer
`Inc.,
`No. 3:15-CV-04525-EMC, ECF 367, at 45 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 30
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`No. CV1003963JVSANX, 2011 WL 13130705 (C.D. Cal. Aug.
`10, 2011) ............................................................................................................. 35
`
`Catalina Lighting v. Lamps Plus,
`295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto,
`790 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .............................................................. 18
`
`Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham,
`Inc.,
`259 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...................................................................................... 6, 7, 9
`
`Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 4090550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) .................. 33
`
`Diviero v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.,
`114 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................ 9
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-iv-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16380 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 25, 27
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 1, 11
`
`FiTeq INC v. Venture Corp.,
`No. 13-CV-01946-BLF, 2016 WL 693256 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22,
`2016) ............................................................................................................. 18, 20
`
`Glaros v. H.H. Robertson Co.,
`797 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 34
`
`Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. Torpharm, Inc.,
`153 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG, 2014 WL 2194501 (N.D. Cal. May 18,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 27
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Hasbro, Inc. v. Sweetpea Entm’t, Inc.,
`No. CV133406DMGJCGX, 2014 WL 12561624 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
`18, 2014) ............................................................................................................. 22
`
`Hoot Winc, LLC v. RSM McGladrey Fin. Process Outsourcing, LLC,
`No. 08CV1559 BTM, 2010 WL 3894966 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29,
`2010) ............................................................................................................. 21, 22
`
`Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States,
`31 Fed. Cl. 481 (1994) ........................................................................................ 31
`
`Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc.,
`No. C-00-20905 RMW, 2008 WL 2951341 (N.D. Cal. July 24,
`2008) ................................................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litig.,
`No. 11 C 9308, 2013 WL 5593609 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013) ............................... 27
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, Inc.,
`No. C 02-03378 EDL, 2007 WL 878519 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2007) ................ 11
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-v-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16381 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,
`No. CV.96 CV 1307-B(AJB), 2004 WL 2284001 (S.D. Cal. Sept.
`7, 2004) ............................................................................................................... 18
`
`Krouch v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`2014 WL 5463333 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2014) .................................................... 12
`
`Lang v. Kohl’s Food Stores, Inc.,
`217 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 28, 33
`
`Largan Precision Co. v. Genius Elec. Optical Co.,
`No. 13-cv-02502-JD, 2014 WL 6882275 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014) .................... 5
`
`Laser Design Int’l, LLC v. BJ Crystal, Inc.,
`No. C03-1179 JSW, 2007 WL 735763 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2007) ...................... 20
`
`Limelight Nets., Inc. v. XO Commc’ns, LLC,
`NO. 3:15-CV-720-JAG, 2018 WL 678245 (E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2018) ................. 30
`
`Lindsey v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`No. 15-CV-03006-WHO, 2016 WL 5815286 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 34
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 07-CV-2000 H (CAB), 2011 WL 7664416, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
`July 13, 2011)............................................................................................ 7, 28, 33
`
`Mariscal v. Graco, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-02548-TEH, 2014 WL 4245949 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 26
`
`Multimedia Patent Tr. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL 12868264 (S.D. Cal. Nov.
`20, 2012) ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 13
`
`Out of the Box Enterprises, LLC v. El Paseo Jewelry Exch., Inc.,
`No. EDCV1001858VAPDTBX, 2012 WL 12893690 (C.D. Cal.
`May 11, 2012) ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-vi-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16382 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 28
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 30, 32, 33
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`828 F. Supp. 2d 688 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ................................................................ 30
`
`Rodriguez v. Gen. Dynamics Armament & Tech Prods.,
`510 F. App. 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 21
`
`San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Prods.,
`No. 14-cv-1865 AJB (JMA), 2017 WL 4227000 (S.D. Cal. Sept.
`22, 2017) ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC,
`No. CV 03-4265-SVW(AJWX), 2006 WL 6116641 (C.D. Cal.
`July 20, 2006), aff’d, 516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................... 20
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co.,
`820 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.,
`550 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 9
`
`United States v. Rushing,
`388 F.3d 1153 (8th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 12
`
`United States v. Skeet,
`665 F.2d 983 (9th Cir. 1982) .............................................................................. 18
`
`United States v. Tamman,
`782 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 12
`
`Wechsler v. Make Int’l Trade, Inc.,
`486 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 32
`
`Zenith Labs. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
`19 F.3d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 6
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-
`vii-
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16383 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ......................................................................................... 10, 33, 34
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 701 ......................................................................................... 18, 20, 22
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ..............................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-
`viii-
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16384 Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Wi-LAN hereby submits this memorandum in support of its Omnibus Motion to
`
`Exclude Testimony of Apple Experts: (I) all evidence, testimony, and argument on
`
`WiMAX or that Wi-LAN’s patent claims are limited to fixed devices, including the
`
`expert reports and opinions of Messrs. Lanning and Tocher; (II) Dr. Walker’s testimony
`
`on ETSI; (III) certain evidence, testimony, and argument regarding non-infringing
`
`alternatives; and (IV) certain testimony from Mr. Gunderson.
`
`I. MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND PRECLUDE WIMAX
`
`Apple intends to inject WiMAX, a cellular standard not relevant to infringement,
`
`validity, or damages, into this case to (1) revive its argument (rejected three times by
`
`10
`
`this Court) that Wi-LAN’s patents are limited to fixed WiMAX devices, and (2)
`
`11
`
`improperly compare the accused LTE products – Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) iPhones –
`
`12
`
`to WiMAX to show non-infringement. Neither argument is permissible. Thus, Wi-
`
`13
`
`LAN respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion to strike the opinions of
`
`14
`
`Messrs. Mark Lanning and Jim Tocher relating to WiMAX. Wi-LAN also requests that
`
`15
`
`the Court preclude Apple from offering evidence or argument at trial (1) relating to
`
`16
`
`WiMAX, or (2) that Wi-LAN’s patents are limited to fixed devices.
`
`17
`
`First, the Court should exclude Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s expert reports
`
`18
`
`and their opinions relating to WiMAX because they are irrelevant and violate the well-
`
`19
`
`established rules that a defendant cannot compare accused products to commercial
`
`20
`
`embodiments to show non-infringement or reargue claim construction at trial. WiMAX
`
`21
`
`is a cellular standard that adopted the technology of the patents-in-suit – it is one
`
`22
`
`commercial embodiment of the patents. When WiMAX first began using the patented
`
`23
`
`technology, it supported only fixed devices, but it later expanded to support mobile
`
`24
`
`devices. As shown below, Messrs. Lanning and Tocher’s WiMAX opinions are
`
`25
`
`irrelevant and can only be used to support Apple’s improper argument that it does not
`
`26
`
`infringe Wi-LAN’s patents because its VoLTE iPhones (1) are not fixed devices, and
`
`27
`
`(2) are not WiMAX devices. The Court already rejected Apple’s argument that Wi-
`
`28
`
`LAN’s patents are limited to fixed devices in claim construction. See, e.g., Exergen
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16385 Page 10 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“No party may
`
`contradict the court’s construction to a jury.”). And the Federal Circuit has held that it
`
`is a “cardinal principle that the accused device must be compared to the claims rather
`
`than to a preferred or commercial embodiment.” Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion
`
`Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Second, the Court should exclude Mr. Tocher’s expert report and opinions
`
`relating to WiMAX because he is not a qualified expert and he did not apply a reliable
`
`methodology. Mr. Tocher is offering a technical opinion that fixed and mobile
`
`WiMAX products are different, but he has no high school or college degree, is not an
`
`10
`
`engineer, and admits he is not an expert in the technology at issue in this lawsuit. Mr.
`
`11
`
`Tocher also did not apply any identifiable methodology – he reaches his conclusions
`
`12
`
`based solely on personal experience.
`
`13
`
`Third, the Court should preclude Apple from discussing WiMAX at trial because
`
`14
`
`WiMAX is not relevant to any issue in this lawsuit. Apple’s WiMAX arguments, such
`
`15
`
`as Mr. Lanning’s arguments that Wi-LAN’s patents are “based on fixed WiMAX” and
`
`16
`
`“WiMAX is significantly different from LTE,” will result in a confusing mini-trial
`
`17
`
`about the differences and similarities between fixed and mobile technology, and
`
`18
`
`between WiMAX and LTE. Wi-LAN will need to present the testimony of its expert,
`
`19
`
`Mr. Claude Royer, to walk through the technology in each of the six patents-in-suit to
`
`20
`
`show each can be used by both fixed and mobile devices. Mr. Royer will then need to
`
`21
`
`walk the jury through the highly complex WiMAX and LTE standards to show there are
`
`22
`
`no differences between them relevant to the patents. To counter Apple’s argument that
`
`23
`
`it chose LTE for its products over WiMAX because WiMAX was inferior, Wi-LAN
`
`24
`
`will also need to show the jury performance metrics for LTE and WiMAX, and that
`
`25
`
`Qualcomm, who had a vested interest in seeing WiMAX fail, paid Apple over a billion
`
`26
`
`dollars not to use WiMAX. None of this is relevant to whether Apple infringes Wi-
`
`27
`
`LAN’s patents or whether the patents are valid, and all of it can be avoided if Apple and
`
`28
`
`its experts are precluded from discussing WiMAX at trial.
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16386 Page 11 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Fourth, the Court should preclude Apple from arguing that Wi-LAN’s patents are
`
`limited to fixed devices. The Court resolved this issue at claim construction, when it
`
`determined that Wi-LAN’s patents are not limited to fixed devices as a matter of law.
`
`Wi-LAN understands that the Court typically entertains motions in limine at a
`
`later date, but Wi-LAN includes these requests in its motion now to save judicial and
`
`party resources. The Court will already consider the relevance of WiMAX to this
`
`lawsuit in the context of this motion to strike Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s WiMAX
`
`opinions. Also, the parties will spend considerable resources preparing the WiMAX
`
`issues for trial if Wi-LAN’s motion is denied. Both Apple and Wi-LAN can withdraw
`
`10
`
`their WiMAX experts if the Court grants this motion, which will streamline and
`
`11
`
`crystalize the key issues for trial.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background
`
`
`1.
`
`The Court has rejected Apple’s argument that the claims are Limited
`
`to fixed WiMAX devices three times
`
`The Court first held that the claims are not limited to fixed devices in claim
`
`16
`
`construction in the previous lawsuit between the parties. In that case, Wi-LAN alleged
`
`17
`
`that Apple’s previous generation iPhones infringed Wi-LAN’s ’040 Patent and U.S.
`
`18
`
`Patent No. 8,315,640 (“the ’640 Patent”).1 Apple argued in claim construction that the
`
`19
`
`term “wireless subscriber radio unit” in the ’640 Patent should be limited to fixed
`
`20
`
`devices and that the term “node” in the ’040 Patent should be construed as a “module”
`
`21
`
`that sits between the base station and end users. (’798 Case, ECF No. 83 at 8, 16.) The
`
`22
`
`Court rejected Apple’s argument that the ’640 Patent is limited to fixed devices and
`
`23
`
`construed “wireless subscriber radio unit” and “node” as a “module” that sits between a
`
`24
`
`base station and its end users. (Id., ECF No. 98.)
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Shortly thereafter, the Court again decided Wi-LAN’s patents are not limited to
`
`
`1 The ’640 Patent is a relative of the ’020, ’723, ’145, and ’761 patents-in-suit. (See
`Case No. 13-cv-00798-DMS-BLM, ECF No. 1, (referred to hereafter as the “’798
`Case”).)
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16387 Page 12 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`fixed devices. (Id., ECF No. 123.) Wi-LAN filed a Motion for Clarification, requesting
`
`that the Court clarify that the “module” can be part of a mobile device. The Court
`
`granted Wi-LAN’s motion, finding that the module “could be a component of a cellular
`
`phone or tablet.” (Id. at 3.)
`
`Finally, the Court considered this issue again in claim construction in this case.
`
`Apple argued that the term “wireless subscriber unit” is limited to fixed devices. At the
`
`Markman hearing, Apple argued the patents were limited to “fixed WiMAX” and that
`
`the patents do not apply to “mobile WiMAX.” (Ex. 1 at 21:18-29:17; 84:1-3 (“If they
`
`invented anything it was a fixed WiMAX system. That is the only invention the patent
`
`10
`
`specifications describe.”).) The Court rejected Apple’s argument for a third time,
`
`11
`
`holding that Wi-LAN’s patents are not limited to fixed devices. (ECF No. 203 at 7, n.3
`
`12
`
`(“Inherent in Apple’s understanding of a ‘CPE’ is that it is fixed or portable, but not
`
`13
`
`mobile. The specification does not limit ‘subscriber units’ or ‘subscriber stations’ in that
`
`14
`
`way, however.”).)
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`2.
`
`Apple’s experts offered irrelevant WiMAX opinions
`
`Apple intends to elicit testimony from its experts Messrs. Mark Lanning and Jim
`
`17
`
`Tocher that the patents-in-suit are WiMAX patents and that Apple’s VoLTE iPhones do
`
`18
`
`not infringe because they use the LTE standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` Neither Mr. Lanning nor Mr. Tocher analyzed whether WiMAX products
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16388 Page 13 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`practiced the Patents-in-Suit, identified any differences between WiMAX and LTE
`
`relevant to whether Apple infringes the patents-in-suit, or stated why their WiMAX
`
`opinions are relevant.
`
`To rebut Apple’s WiMAX arguments, Wi-LAN retained Mr. Claude Royer, who
`
`led Nortel’s WiMAX and LTE standardization and product development teams. (Ex. 5
`
`¶¶ 11-12.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
` Wi-LAN
`
`11
`
`offers Mr. Royer’s testimony solely to rebut Apple’s WiMAX arguments and will
`
`12
`
`withdraw his WiMAX testimony if this motion is granted.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Exclude Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s WiMAX
`
`Opinions
`
`
`
` Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s WiMAX opinions are irrelevant 1.
`
`The Court should exclude Messrs. Lanning’s and Tocher’s WiMAX opinions
`
`17
`
`because they are irrelevant, and the only possible use for this testimony is to resurrect
`
`18
`
`Apple’s failed argument that the patents-in-suit are limited to fixed devices, or to
`
`19
`
`improperly compare Apple’s VoLTE products to a commercial embodiment – WiMAX
`
`20
`
`– to prove non-infringement. Neither argument is allowed by law. Expert testimony
`
`21
`
`that reargues issues already resolved at claim construction is inadmissible. See, e.g.,
`
`22
`
`Largan Precision Co. v. Genius Elec. Optical Co., No. 13-cv-02502-JD, 2014 WL
`
`23
`
`6882275, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014) (striking expert testimony where “the expert
`
`24
`
`opinions simply rehash arguments that [the defendant] made, and the Court rejected, at
`
`25
`
`claim construction”). And “[e]xpert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`2 Because these exhibits consist of nearly 500 pages of WiMAX and LTE analysis, Wi-
`LAN has not burdened the Court (and ECF filling system) with voluminous exhibits.
`However, Wi-LAN will provide these exhibits if requested.
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16389 Page 14 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`case is not relevant, and ergo, non-helpful,” and so also inadmissible. Daubert v.
`
`Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993).
`
`
`
`
`
`The jury will not decide whether
`
`Apple’s products infringe by comparing the claims to WiMAX or comparing fixed and
`
`Mobile WiMAX products to each other; the jury decides infringement only by
`
`comparing Apple’s products to the claims. See, e.g., Catalina Lighting v. Lamps Plus,
`
`295 F.3d 1277, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining “infringement is to be determined by
`
`10
`
`comparing the asserted claim to the accused device”). The only reason to offer this
`
`11
`
`testimony is to suggest to the jury that fixed and mobile technologies are different, and
`
`12
`
`because Apple uses mobile devices, it does not infringe. The Court already rejected this
`
`13
`
`argument in claim construction. See, e.g., Multimedia Patent Tr. v. Apple Inc., No. 10-
`
`14
`
`CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL 12868264, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012) (noting parties
`
`15
`
`are “precluded from presenting evidence, arguments, or opinions inconsistent with the
`
`16
`
`Court’s claim construction rulings”).
`
`17
`
`18
`
`. The only reason to elicit this testimony is to suggest to the jury that
`
`
`
`19
`
`Apple’s VoLTE iPhones do not infringe Wi-LAN’s patents because LTE is different
`
`20
`
`from WiMAX, but “it is improper to compare the accused products to commercial
`
`21
`
`embodiments in an infringement analysis.” Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1347; see also Zenith
`
`22
`
`Labs. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 19 F.3d 1418, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“As we have
`
`23
`
`repeatedly said, it is error for a court to compare in its infringement analysis the accused
`
`24
`
`product or process with the patentee’s commercial embodiment or other version of the
`
`25
`
`product or process; the only proper comparison is with the claims of the patent.”).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`. Mr. Lanning’s cited evidence shows he intends to argue
`
`
`
`28
`
`that WiMAX (and by implication Wi-LAN’s patents) was technically inferior to LTE
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16390 Page 15 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`and rejected by the cellular industry. But either Apple’s products practice the claims, or
`
`they do not – this inquiry has nothing to do with whether an unrelated commercial
`
`embodiment of the patents succeeded in the market.
`
`Finally, Mr. Tocher’s WiMAX opinions are also irrelevant.
`
`
`
`
`
`commercial embodiments are not relevant to whether Apple’s products practice the
`
` The similarities and differences between these
`
`claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple’s other experts admit that WiMAX is irrelevant to the key issues in this
`
`
`
`12
`
`case. For example,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Tocher is not a qualified expert 2.
`
`Mr. Tocher’s report comparing fixed to mobile WiMAX should also be excluded
`
`because he is not a qualified expert on this subject. “Under Daubert, the court is
`
`charged with a ‘gatekeeping function’ to ensure expert testimony is both reliable and
`
`relevant.” Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 07-CV-2000 H (CAB), 2011 WL
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16391 Page 16 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`7664416, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 13, 2011); see also Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Most of the technology at issue in this lawsuit relates to MAC
`
`protocols in the accused products, and Mr. Tocher does not consider himself an expert
`
`in this technology.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Tocher owned a company that sold fixed WiMAX products, but that does not
`
`
`
`make him a technical expert.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Given his lack of formal training, admission that he is not a technical expert on
`
`the patented technology, and lack of any experience with mobile WiMAX products
`
`whatsoever, Mr. Tocher is not qualified to testify about the differences between fixed
`
`and mobile WiMAX products. See Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 820 F.3d at
`
`1323 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (excluding expert who “admitted that he had no work experience”
`
`OMNIBUS MOTION TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 328-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.16392 Page 17 of
` 45
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`with relevant devices before serving as an expert); Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte
`
`Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Mr. Bliss lacks the necessary
`
`expertise to be of assistance to the court or the jury on the technical aspects of this case”
`
`and “[t]he court, in its role as gatekeeper, must exclude expert testimony that is not
`
`reliable”).
`
`
`
` Mr. Tocher does not apply a reliable methodology 3.
`
`Mr. Tocher’s opinions are not reliable because he does not use a methodology
`
`a