Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20675 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`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 Plaintiff,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`(Lead Case No. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM)
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN FURTHER
`SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF 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 REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-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 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20676 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING WIMAX ................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING DR. WALKER ...................................... 4
`
`III. POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING NON-INFRINGING
`
`ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING MR. GUNDERSON ............................ 10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-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 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20677 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2013 WL 5958176 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7,
`2013) ............................................................................................................. 14, 15
`
`ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc.,
`155 F. Supp. 3d 489, 511 (D. Del. 2016) ........................................................... 14
`
`AVM Techs., LLC, v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 15-33, 2017 WL 1787562 (D. Del. May 1, 2017) ........................... 12, 14, 15
`
`Cave Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-02177-SI, 2017 WL 4772348 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) ................ 14
`
`Charleston Med. Therapeutics, Inc. v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, No. 2,
`No. 13-CV-2078-RMG, 2015 WL 10913613 (D.S.C. Apr. 16,
`2015) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation v. Cisco Sys.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-05008 NC, 2016 WL 8231157 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.,
`154 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D. Del. 2016) ........................................................................ 8
`
`FastShip, LLC v. United States,
`131 Fed. Cl. 592 (2017) ...................................................................................... 14
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999, 2015 WL 4272870 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2015) ............. 9, 10, 13
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-iii-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-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 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20678 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834 (N.D. Cal. May 24,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00134, 2017 WL 2869365 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ..................... 9
`
`Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:12-CV-04882-PSG, 2014 WL 2194501 (N.D. Cal. May 18,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Good Tech. Corp. v. Mobileiron, Inc.,
`No. 5:12-CV-05826-PSG, 2015 WL 4197554 (N.D. Cal. July 10,
`2015) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co.,
`185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 6
`
`In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litig.,
`No. 11 C 9308, 2013 WL 5593609 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013) ................... 12, 13, 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 10-1067, 2015 WL 307572 (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2015) ...................................... 5
`
`Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Sys.,
`No. CV 10-04645 RS, 2013 WL 3786633 (N.D. Cal. July 18,
`2013) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 15
`
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Enfora, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 665, 677-79 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................... 15
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`No. C10-1823JLR, 2013 WL 2111217 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25,
`2013) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2011 WL 5914033, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
`28, 2011) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-iv-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20679 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-02024-RMW, 2016 WL 590121 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13,
`2016), order clarified, No. 5:13-CV-02024-RMW, 2016 WL
`9001260 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2016) ...................................................................... 8
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Riles v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co.,
`298 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC,
`No. CV 03-4265, 2006 WL 6116641 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2006) .......................... 7
`
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co.,
`802 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 10
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 6
`
`TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`Ericsson,
`No. CV 15-2370 JVS(DFMX), 2017 WL 6611635 (C.D. Cal. Dec.
`21, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 11
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`No. 09-CV-305, 2013 WL 1248633 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 26, 2013) ...................... 13
`
`TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp.,
`929 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................. 10
`
`United States v. Chang,
`207 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 11
`
`United States v. Durham,
`464 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Visteon Glob. Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l,
`903 F. Supp. 2d 521 (E.D. Mich. 2012) ............................................................... 6
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-v-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20680 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Visteon Glob. Techs., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l,
`No. 10-CV-10578, 2016 WL 5956325 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2016)................... 11
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 701 ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ..................................................................................... 7, 10, 11, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-vi-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20681 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`I.
`
`POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING WIMAX
`
`WiMAX Is Irrelevant: Apple’s expert opinions on WiMAX are not relevant in
`
`this lawsuit. Apple does not cite any evidence to support its attorney argument that
`
`WiMAX is “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Contrary to Apple’s argument, WiMAX is not relevant to the
`
`commercial success of Wi-LAN’s patents, teaching about the state of the art, or
`
`rebutting any of Wi-LAN’s arguments.
`
`First, Apple’s expert opinions on WiMAX are not relevant to the commercial
`
`success of Wi-LAN’s patents because Apple has no evidence that any WiMAX product
`
`ever practiced Wi-LAN’s patents. WiMAX was not a commercial product—it was a
`
`standard specification.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Apple should not be allowed to tie Wi-LAN’s patents to products that did not
`
`practice the claims, and argue that because those products failed Wi-LAN’s patents
`
`failed. Apple’s cases do not support its claim that a standard that did not require
`
`products to use a claimed invention is relevant to the invention’s commercial success.
`
`Second, Apple’s argument that Messrs. Tocher’s and Lanning’s WiMAX
`
`opinions are relevant to teaching the jury about the state of the art fails because their
`
`opinions relate to technology released years after Ensemble filed its applications.
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-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 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20682 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`These opinions cannot relate to the state of the art because Mobile WiMAX and LTE
`
`were released three and six years, respectively, after Ensemble filed its patent
`
`applications.
`
`
`
` There is no justification for these opinions; Apple
`
`offers them only to suggest to the jury that Wi-LAN’s patents related to fixed WiMAX,
`
`not mobile WiMAX, and therefore, Wi-LAN’s patents cover fixed and not mobile
`
`technology. The Court should strike these opinions because they directly contradict the
`
`10
`
`Court’s three prior holdings that Wi-LAN’s patents are not limited to fixed devices.
`
`Third,
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
` shows
`
`13
`
`that Apple is arguing non-infringement based on differences between LTE and
`
`14
`
`WiMAX, in violation of black-letter law. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`
`15
`
`314 F.3d 1313, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining it is a “cardinal principle that the
`
`16
`
`accused device must be compared to the claims rather than to a preferred or commercial
`
`17
`
`embodiment.”). Even if this type of analysis was allowed,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
` This is irrelevant and intended to confuse the jury.
`
`21
`
`Apple’s argument that Mr. Lanning rebuts Wi-LAN’s claim is circular. Wi-LAN does
`
`22
`
`not want to show the jury that WiMAX and LTE both support products that practice the
`
`23
`
`claims, but will be forced to if the Court allows Apple to make these arguments.
`
`24
`
`Allowing Apple to offer these opinions on WiMAX would be fundamentally
`
`25
`
`unfair to Wi-LAN. Apple says it will not argue non-infringement based on the
`
`26
`
`differences between fixed and mobile or WiMAX and LTE devices, but Apple does not
`
`27
`
`have to say those words to achieve its intended result. Apple’s experienced trial
`
`28
`
`lawyers know that if they repeat “Wi-LAN’s patents are based on fixed WiMAX” and
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20683 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`“WiMAX is significantly different from LTE” enough times at trial, they can confuse
`
`the jury into finding that Apple does not infringe because it uses mobile LTE products,
`
`not fixed WiMAX products. If the Court allows Apple to make these arguments to the
`
`jury, this trial will devolve into a confusing debate about the similarities and differences
`
`between fixed and mobile products and the WiMAX and LTE standards, and the market
`
`forces that led the industry to adopt LTE over WiMAX. The Court must exercise its
`
`role as gatekeeper to exclude this irrelevant evidence and let the jury decide this case on
`
`the merits by comparing Wi-LAN’s claims to Apple’s products and the prior art.
`
`Unqualified and No Methodology: First,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Tocher is not qualified to tell the jury that
`
`14
`
`fixed and mobile WiMAX are different and incompatible in a way relevant to Wi-
`
`15
`
`LAN’s patents if he is not an expert in Wi-LAN’s patented technology. Contrary to
`
`16
`
`Apple’s argument, Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 802 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`
`17
`
`2016) is directly on point. The expert in that case had “substantial experience in the
`
`18
`
`field of industrial design,” but admitted he had no experience relating to the specific
`
`19
`
`technology-at-issue in that lawsuit, personal flotation device design. Similarly here,
`
`20
`
`Mr. Tocher may have experience with WiMAX generally but admitted he is not an
`
`21
`
`expert in the technology here, MAC protocols, and that he does not have any experience
`
`22
`
`developing or selling mobile WiMAX products.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Owning one company that sold fixed WiMAX
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20684 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`products does not qualify him to testify on the market’s selection of LTE over WiMAX.
`
`Second, Apple failed to identify a scientifically valid methodology underlying
`
`Mr. Tocher’s opinions. In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that courts evaluating an
`
`expert’s methodology should consider: (1) whether the theory can be and has been
`
`tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) the known or potential rate
`
`of error, and (4) whether the theory or methodology employed is generally accepted in
`
`the relevant scientific community. 509 U.S. at 593-94.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Tocher does not use
`
`12
`
`any methodology—he reaches all of his conclusions based entirely on his personal say-
`
`13
`
`so. These opinions cannot be tested or evaluated, and are not admissible expert
`
`14
`
`testimony. Apple’s cases are irrelevant, as in those cases the parties disputed flaws in
`
`15
`
`the expert’s methodology. Here, Mr. Tocher uses no identifiable methodology.
`
`16
`
`II.
`
`POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING DR. WALKER
`
`17
`
`Apple fails to identify any scientifically valid methodology underlying Dr.
`
`18
`
`Walker’s analysis, which contrary to Apple’s attorney argument, consists entirely of
`
`19
`
`two steps:
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Apple’s cited testimony is irrelevant
`
`26
`
`background information that played no part in Dr. Walker’s conclusion.
`
`27
`
`Apple cites cases showing that experts can rely on assumptions, but does not
`
`28
`
`address Wi-LAN’s cited cases showing that courts routinely exercise their role as
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20685 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`gatekeeper to exclude opinions, like Dr. Walker’s, when they rely on assumptions that
`
`are not supported by the facts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dr.
`
`Walker never said that an ETSI member can violate the ETSI IPR Policy if it “should
`
`have been aware” its patents were essential. Apple’s attorneys are trying to lower their
`
`10
`
`burden of proof. Dr. Walker also never testified that he believed Wi-LAN or Ensemble
`
`11
`
`believed the patents-in-suit were essential while ETSI members. Dr. Walker refused to
`
`12
`
`offer this opinion for Apple because he could not reach that conclusion on the evidence.
`
`13
`
`Apple’s citations to Dr. Walker’s expert report and deposition say only that Wi-LAN
`
`14
`
`and Mr. Stanwood were aware of LTE generally, not that they believed LTE might use
`
`15
`
`the particular MAC protocols claimed in Wi-LAN’s patents.
`
`16
`
`III. POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES
`
`17
`
`Apple does not—and cannot—refute that Wi-LAN’s issues all turn on Apple’s
`
`18
`
`failure to disclose
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20686 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`As explained by the Federal Circuit, the court must consider whether the alleged
`
`infringer “had the necessary equipment, knowhow, and experience to implement those
`
`non-infringing alternatives.” Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185
`
`
`
`F.3d 1341, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999).2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Apple’s Opposition misconstrues the crux of Wi-LAN’s arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id.; see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Courts borrow NIA teachings from Grain Processing into a reasonable royalty
`analysis. Riles, 298 F.3d at 1312; Visteon, 903 F. Supp. 2d at 529.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20687 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Speculative Lay Opinion.
`
` United States v. Durham, 464 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.
`
`15
`
`2006). Apple does not dispute that
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`within the scope of Rule 702, and thus cannot be provided in the form of a lay opinion
`
`19
`
`under Rule 701. See Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, No. CV 03-4265, 2006 WL 6116641,
`
` constitute technical or other specialized knowledge
`
`20
`
`at *22 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2006).
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20688 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple’s reliance on Good Tech. and Interwoven fails because
`
`15
`
`In Good Tech., the expert conducted independent analysis based on his own experience
`
`16
`
`and then he confirmed his conclusions by consulting with the CTO on NIAs. 2015 WL
`
`17
`
`4197554, at *4. Similarly, in Interwoven, the expert considered produced evidence,
`
`18
`
`filed papers, and publicly available data in addition to his conversations with the CTO
`
`19
`
`in concluding that no acceptable NIAs exist. 2013 WL 3786633, at *9.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 This situation is unlike EMC where an expert relied on a chief software architect’s
`opinions premised on factual assertions about actual developments of architecture then
`in progress. 154 F. Supp. 3d at 115-16. Radware, 2016 WL 590121, and Oracle, 2011
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20689 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`evidence is automatic and mandatory under Rule 37(c)(1) unless non-disclosure was
`
`justified or harmless.” Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-00134,
`
`2017 WL 2869365, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) (excluding expert NIA opinions
`
` “The exclusion of non-disclosed
`
`for failure to disclose NIAs during fact discovery).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple’s citations
`
`to Finjan, 2016 WL 2988834, and Charleston Med.
`
`15
`
`Therapeutics, 2015 WL 10913613, ignore the procedural history of this action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WL 5914033, are also inapposite. The evidence relied on there are not at issue here,
`e.g., witness testimony and produced documents on the strengths, weaknesses, and use
`of NIAs.
`
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20690 Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`This situation is precise opposite of Finjan, where the court denied Finjan’s motion to
`
`strike undisclosed invalidity theories because the moving party never sought more
`
`specificity. 2016 WL 2988834, at *12.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. POINTS IN REPLY REGARDING MR. GUNDERSON
`
`Unqualified:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Apple’s Opposition does not otherwise reference
`
`12
`
`any Rule 702 qualification “by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to
`
`13
`
`admit Mr. Gunderson’s criticisms of Prof. Prince’s survey and economics opinions.
`
`14
`
`Apple’s citation to Summit 6, 802 F.3d 1283, does not open the door for just any
`
`15
`
`damages expert to opine on profit estimates derived from a CBC survey—there, the
`
`16
`
`surveys at issue were used to estimate “the percentage of camera users who used the
`
`17
`
`camera to perform the infringing methods rather than for other purposes.” Id. at 1297.
`
`18
`
`Usage surveys do not involve the complex economic concepts such as WTP, market
`
`19
`
`dynamics, or profit changes that Prof. Prince studied.
`
`20
`
`Similarly, Apple’s citation to TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp., 929 F.
`
`21
`
`Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2014), does not support admitting Mr. Gunderson’s
`
`22
`
`criticisms. The rebuttal expert there offered opinions that “(a) [the survey expert]’s
`
`23
`
`methodology was inappropriate given the large number of features of the products
`
`24
`
`which were not tested; (b) the results were nonsensical in the manner that the
`
`25
`
`respondents interpreted the price discounts used in the surveys; (c) the reboot times
`
`26
`
`were vastly overstated in comparison to reboot times determined by [the plaintiff]’s
`
`27
`
`own expert; and (d) the price discount levels were not appropriately chosen.” Id. at
`
`28
`
`1019. These are actual survey methodology critiques that evidence a threshold level of
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-10-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20691 Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`expertise and understanding of CBC surveys.
`
`
`
`
`
` Simply disagreeing with Prof. Prince’s conclusions is
`
`insufficient to admit expert testimony. United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169, 1172-73
`
`(9th Cir. 2000) (affirming exclusion of expert testimony where expert was not qualified
`
`in training or experience, practical or otherwise, to opine on issues such that
`
`“[defendant’s expert]’s testimony would be ‘a complete waste of the jury’s time.’”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Insufficient Facts: The Federal Circuit directs that “abstract recitations of
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`royalty stacking theory, and qualitative testimony that an invention is valuable—
`
`21
`
`without being anchored to a quantitative market valuation—are insufficiently reliable.”
`
`22
`
`CSIRO, 809 F.3d at 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`6 Apple cites TCL, 2017 WL 6611635, but TCL actually supports the exclusion of Mr.
`Gunderson’s survey opinions. See id. at *29 (“no experience in survey work, and the
`basis for his reliance on the surveys is questionable. By contrast, Dr. Simonson is
`exceptionally well credentialed in survey work.”). Also, TCL involves FRAND, not a
`reasonable royalty, and the court “did not find useful a full-blown Georgia-Pacific
`analysis in the unique context of a FRAND dispute.” Id. at *1, 26, 56. Wi-LAN has
`already distinguished TCL, and Visteon, 2016 WL 5956325. (ECF No. 352 at 15-20.)
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-11-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20692 Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By contrast, in AVM Techs., LLC, v. Intel Corp., No. 15-33, 2017 WL
`
`1787562 (D. Del. May 1, 2017), “Dr. Shih’s explanation of patent ‘royalty stacking’
`
`provides relevant context for the jury with respect to why comparable licenses would
`
`have informed the hypothetical negotiation” and that “[b]y basing royalty payments on
`
`10
`
`prior comparable licenses and restricting royalties to the market value of comparable
`
`11
`
`technology, a company is better able to avoid patent stacking problems.” (AVM, ECF
`
`12
`
`No. 514 at 14-15.) Similarly, in Core Wireless, “numerous specific royalty demands
`
`13
`
`have been made.” 2016 WL 8231157 at *2.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
` and a standard’s royalty
`
`16
`
`stacking concerns are not present in this case involving non-SEPs. See Innovatio, 2013
`
`17
`
`WL 5593609, at *5 (noting the “royalty stacking concerns in RAND licensing”).
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Patent Counting Is Unscientific: First, Apple is incorrect that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, Apple’s distinction of GBT and Innovatio is without a difference—
`
`
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-12-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20693 Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Third, notwithstanding what Apple thinks is an appropriate methodology, Mr.
`
`Gunderson’s opinions must comply with Rule 702 to be admissible. Patent counting is
`
`unreliable. GBT, 2014 WL 2194501, at *6; Innovatio, 2013 WL 5593609, at *10;
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C10-1823JLR, 2013 WL 2111217, at *80 (W.D.
`
`Wash. Apr. 25, 2013) (“Another problem with using patent pools as the de facto
`
`RAND8 royalty rate is that the patent-counting royalty allocation structure of pools does
`
`not consider the importance of a particular SEP to the standard or to the implementer’s
`
`products as the court’s hypothetical negotiation requires.”); Toshiba Corp. v. Imation
`
`10
`
`Corp., No. 09-CV-305, 2013 WL 1248633, at *12 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 26, 2013) (“simply
`
`11
`
`divid[ing] the royalty rate by the number of patents to determine the specific rates for
`
`12
`
`the patents-in-suit [would] not [be] sufficiently rigorous to meet the requirements of
`
`13
`
`Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702”).
`
`14
`
`Fourth, GPNE involved SEPs, unlike here, where Apple is not accused of
`
`15
`
`infringing SEPs, and is therefore inapplicable. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`
`16
`
`No. 13-cv-03999, 2015 WL 4272870, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2015) (finding reliance
`
`17
`
`on GPNE “unpersuasive” because it “concerned standard essential patents, which are
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`. In such
`
`situations involving SEPs, the Georgia-Pacific factors used to determine a reasonable
`royalty are not used—instead they are adapted into “modified factors” “[b]ecause of the
`unique circumstances of the RAND obligation” in order to reach a “RAND rate.” 2013
`WL 5593609, at *5. A “top down” approach like Mr. Gunderson’s, “has several
`significant advantages” for calculating a RAND rate—as opposed to a reasonable
`royalty—in that: “it accounts for both the principle of non-discrimination and royalty
`stacking concerns in RAND licensing”; “[i]t therefore appropriately simulates the
`decisions that chipmakers would make in the hypothetical RAND negotiation”; “the
`existing profit margin on chips is the likely ceiling on [a] RAND royalty, and is
`therefore an appropriate starting point from which to calculate that royalty.” Id. at *38-
`39. None of these circumstances are present here.
`
`OMNIBUS REPLY TO EXCLUDE APPLE’S EXPERTS
`
`-13-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 385 Filed 05/31/18 PageID.20694 Page 20 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`not at issue here”). The same is true for Innovatio. In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC
`
`Patent Litig., No. 11 C 9308, 2013 WL 5593609, at *9–10 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013).
`
`Fifth,
`
`Non-Comparable Licenses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pre-Issuance Licenses—Apple’s citation to Cave Consulting, does not refute Wi-
`
`LAN’s argument that license agreements predating the issuance of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`10
`
`are generally not probative of a reasonable royalty. (Mem. at 30-31.) In Cave
`
`11
`
`Consulting, the court admitted licenses that “are related to the patent-in-suit, as the
`
`12
`
`licenses are for the commercial embodiment of the [patent-in-suit].” 2017 WL 4772348
`
`13
`
`at *3. This holding did not run afoul of ResQNet’s prohibition on using licenses with
`
`14
`
`“no relation to the claimed patent.” Id.
`
`15
`
`
`
` See FastShip,
`
`16
`
`LLC v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 592, 623 n.34 (2017) (“This agreement predates the
`
`17
`
`patents in suit … Therefore it is of limited utility to determining a reasonable royalty”).
`
`18
`
`Settlement Agreements—“‘[U]sing prior settlement agreements to prove the
`
`19
`
`amount of a reasonable royalty is questionable’ because such agreements ‘are tainted by
`
`20
`
`the coercive environment of patent litigation [and] are unsuitable to prove a reasonable
`
`21
`
`royalty . . . the premise of which assumes a voluntary agreement will be reached
`
`22
`
`between a willing licensor and willing licensee, with validity and infringement of the
`
`23
`
`patent not being disputed.’” ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc., 155 F.
`
`24
`
`Su