`Case 1:10—cv—00258—SLR—MPT Document 498 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #: 9769
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`APPLE |NC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`\a\;\.a\y\i-x./xysaxz
`
`Civ. No. 10-258-SLR
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`At Wilmington this 3rd day of December, 2012, having reviewed the evidence
`
`relevant to Apple lnc.’s (“Apple”) request that MobileMedia Ideas, LLC’s (“MobileMedia”)
`
`expert, Dr. Sigurd Meldal, not be permitted to supplement his infringement opinion that
`
`the “Release Complete” message of the accused products constitutes the “rejection
`
`message” claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,253,075 (“the ‘O75 patent”) (D.l. 493; D.l. 494);
`
`IT IS ORDERED that MobileMedia is precluded from offering at trial Dr. Me|dal’s
`
`testimony regarding the “Release Complete” message constituting the “rejection
`
`message” claimed in the ‘O75 patent (D.l. 493 at ex. 4, 11 6), for the reasons that follow:
`
`1. Dr. Meldal never referred to the “Release Complete” message in his first
`
`expert report on infringement.
`
`(Id. at ex. 1) During his November 29, 2012 deposition,
`
`Dr. Meldal admits as much.
`
`(Id. at ex. 5, 55:2—25, 5614-15, 8925-14, 89224-9025)
`
`2. During his April 4, 2012 deposition (“April deposition”), Dr. Meldal stated that,
`
`besides the “Disconnect” message, he “[had] not formed an opinion .
`
`.
`
`. about there
`
`being possibly other messages that are also rejection messages.” (Id. at ex. 2, 560:19-
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR-MPT Document 498 Filed 12/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 9770
`Case 1:10—cv—00258—SLR—MPT Document 498 Filed 12/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 9770
`
`562:4) Although he did call the “Release Complete” message a rejection message in
`
`response to opposing counsel’s questioning, Dr. Me|dal’s testimony in that regard was
`
`merely conclusory, without any reasoning.
`
`(Id. at 547:21-549:18) Dr. Meldal later
`
`stated that the focus of his infringement theory for the ‘D75 patent prior to his April
`
`deposition was on the “Disconnect” message being the claimed rejection message.
`
`(Id.
`
`at ex. 5, 159215-20)
`
`3.
`
`In addition, Dr. Meldal concedes that he was aware of the “Release
`
`Complete” message prior to submitting his first expert report (Id. at ex. 5, 5419-13), yet
`
`he did not offer that infringement theory in his first expert report. He testified that
`
`111] 234 and 244 of his first expert report refer to the “Disconnect Message,” rather than
`
`the “Release Complete” message, of the Global System for Mobile Communications
`
`protocol.
`
`(Id. at ex. 5, 52:14-53:6)
`
`4. Moreover, MobileMedia, in its opposition brief to Apple’s motion for partial
`
`summary judgment of non—infringement of the ‘D75 patent, does not cite any evidence in
`
`the record for its argument regarding the “Release Complete” message.
`
`(Id. at ex. 3, 7-
`
`8)
`
`5. Finally, 1] 6 of Dr. Meldal’s Second Supplemental Expert Report is outside the
`
`scope of the supplementation that the court allowed during the November 21, 2012
`
`teleconference.
`
`In the context of the teleconference, the court limited Dr. Melda|’s
`
`supplementation to MobileMedia’s timer theory of infringement for the ‘D75 patent.
`
`(D.l.
`
`497 at 6:15-7:16, 8:5—16, 12:17-13:9, 21:5-8)
`
`6. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the court precludes MobileMedia
`
`from offering at trial Dr. Meldal’s testimony regarding the “Release Complete” message
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-00258-SLR-MPT Document 498 Filed 12/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 9771
`Case 1:10—cv—OO258—SLR—MPT Document 498 Filed 12/03/12 Page 3 of 3 Page|D #: 9771
`
`constituting the “rejection message” claimed in the ‘O75 patent (Id. at ex. 4, 1] 6).
`
`United Statesgistrict Judge
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
