Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 456 Filed 07/25/18 PageID.22152 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`JOHN ALLCOCK (Bar No. 98895)
`john.allcock@dlapiper.com
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM (Bar No. 174931)
`sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
`ERIN GIBSON (Bar No. 229305)
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`ROBERT WILLIAMS (Bar No. 246990)
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`TIFFANY MILLER (Bar No. 246987)
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`JACOB ANDERSON (Bar No. 265768)
`jacob.anderson@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, California 92101-4297
`Tel: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`
`ROBERT BUERGI (Bar No. 242910)
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`AMY WALTERS (Bar No. 286022)
`amy.walters@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Tel: 650.833.2000
`Fax: 650.833.2001
`
`Attorneys for
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`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
`
`WI-LAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AND RELATED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282494156.1
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM
`(consolidated);
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`(lead case)
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO
`PROFESSOR PRINCE’S OPINIONS
`
`Dept.: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 456 Filed 07/25/18 PageID.22153 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In order to avoid disrupting the presentation of evidence at trial with multiple
`
`preservation objections, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully submits for the record
`
`the following written objections to the expected testimony by Professor Prince.
`
`Professor Prince’s survey results and related calculations, which provide at least
`
`part of the basis for Mr. Kennedy’s damages opinion, fail to apportion the relative
`
`value between the patented and unpatented features, which is required by law. For
`
`the reasons stated in Apple’s Daubert motion briefing and trial brief, Mr.
`
`Kennedy’s opinions relying on Professor Prince’s survey results are inadmissible,
`
`which render Professor Prince’s opinions irrelevant and unnecessary. Therefore,
`
`10
`
`this testimony should not be admitted for the reasons stated in Apple’s Daubert
`
`11
`
`motion briefing and trial brief, and as irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative
`
`12
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402 and 403. Dkt. Nos. 333, 373, 433.
`
`13
`
`The relevance of Professor Prince’s opinions and calculations is linked to the
`
`14
`
`admissibility of Mr. Kennedy’s damages opinions based on Professor Prince. For
`
`15
`
`example, Mr. Kennedy relies on Professor Prince’s opinions that (1) consumers
`
`16
`
`would pay between $74 to $136 per unit for just one of the three alleged “benefits”
`
`17
`
`of the claimed inventions, and (2) Apple would lose between $70 to $120 of profit
`
`18
`
`per device without that alleged benefit. As stated in Apple’s Daubert motion, Mr.
`
`19
`
`Kennedy relies on Professor Prince’s “willingness-to-pay” and “profit impact”
`
`20
`
`calculations as a proxy for apportionment, but they are not apportionment and are
`
`21
`
`not intended to apportion the value of the claimed inventions relative to unpatented
`
`22
`
`technology. Dkt. No. 333 at 16-23. Mr. Kennedy’s opinions based on Professor
`
`23
`
`Prince’s calculations are therefore inadmissible because patentee “must in every
`
`24
`
`case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the
`
`25
`
`patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features.”
`
`26
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting
`
`27
`
`Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884)); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`879 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Further apportionment was required to
`
`
`WEST\282494156.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 456 Filed 07/25/18 PageID.22154 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`reflect the value of the patented technology compared to the value of the unpatented
`
`elements.”); LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 70 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (requiring experts to undertake “task of discerning the ODD’s value
`
`relative to all other components in the laptop”). Professor Prince’s opinions and
`
`calculations have no relevance to this case once Mr. Kennedy’s opinions are
`
`properly excluded as not meeting the Federal Circuit’s apportionment requirements.
`
`Therefore, for the reasons stated above and as set forth in Apple’s Daubert
`
`briefing (Dkt. Nos. 333, 373) and in Apple’s trial brief (Dkt. No 433), Apple
`
`respectfully requests that the Court sustain Apple’s objection to Professor Prince’s
`
`10
`
`testimony as irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative under Federal Rules of
`
`11
`
`Evidence 401, 402 and 403 because they are only arguably relevant to the damages
`
`12
`
`opinion that the Court should separately excluded as contrary to the Federal
`
`13
`
`Circuit’s requirements.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 25, 2018
`
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`By /s/ Sean C. Cunningham
`JOHN ALLCOCK
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM
`ERIN GIBSON
`ROBERT BUERGI
`ROBERT WILLIAMS
`TIFFANY MILLER
`JACOB ANDERSON
`AMY WALTERS
`
`
`
`Attorneys for
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`WEST\282494156.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 456 Filed 07/25/18 PageID.22155 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 25, 2018, I electronically transmitted the
`
`attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and
`
`transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Sean C. Cunningham
`Sean C. Cunningham
`
`
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`WEST\282494156.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`3:14-CV-001507-DMS-BLM
`
`