Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 46609
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1596-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1597-LPS
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED and
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF D.I. 385
`FILED: MAY 11, 2021
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF D.I. 318
`FILED: MAY 11, 2021
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF D.I. 251
`FILED: MAY 11, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 46610
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`)))))))))))
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`f/k/a MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA)
`INC. f/k/a SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY CORPORATION and
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC. and OATH INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF D.I. 362
`FILED: MAY 11, 2021
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF D.I. 279
`FILED: MAY 11, 2021
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF D.I. 367
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF D.I. 301
`FILED: MAY 11, 2021
`
`FILED: MAY 11, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 46611
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
` ROY WEINSTEIN’S OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY
`UNDER FED. R. EVID. 702 AND DAUBERT1
`
`1 Defendants have filed an identical Reply in Support of their Motion to Exclude Roy
`Weinstein’s Opinions and Testimony Under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert in each of their
`respective cases.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 46612
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Weinstein Does Not Rely On Any Reliable Facts To Determine a Reasonably
`Royalty Based on the Microsoft Agreement ............................................................2
`
`B.
`
`Mr. Weinstein’s 4X Multiplier is Arbitrary and Unsupported By Any Facts .........5
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................8
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 46613
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-542-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1178517 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2019) ..........................................3
`
`Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.,
`470 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D. Del. 2007) ...........................................................................................4
`
`Interactive Pics. Corp. v. Infinite Pics., Inc.,
`274 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................3
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Mondis Tech., Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-565-TJW-CE, 2011 WL 2417367 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2011) .........................5, 7
`
`Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL 5873711 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012) ..............................6
`
`Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 10-1055-RGA, 2014 WL 202399 (D. Del. Jan. 16, 2014) ..................................................6
`
`Saint Lawrence Commc’ns LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 2:15-cv-349-JRG, 2017 WL 679623 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2017) ....................................6, 7
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................6
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Techs. Inc.,
`No. 14-1445-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 466358 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2017) .......................................3, 4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 46614
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Arendi’s Opposition acknowledges the key facts that render Mr. Weinstein’s analysis
`
`unreliable and unsuitable to present to a jury.
`
`First, Mr. Weinstein calculates a per-unit royalty of Arendi’s prior settlement agreements
`
`by dividing the settlement payments by an estimate of the number of units covered by the
`
`settlement agreements. However, Mr. Weinstein made no attempt to estimate the number of
`
`licensed units using any acceptable economic method, but instead accepted a hindsight
`
`guesstimate from Mr. Atle Hedløy (Arendi’s CEO and sole patent inventor) as to the licensed
`
`units sold by Microsoft. Arendi attempts to repackage Mr. Hedløy’s guesstimates (undisclosed
`
`during fact discovery) as allowable “projection.” But the case law Arendi itself cites requires
`
`that projections be (a) projections of the defendant, (b) based on actual sales records or business
`
`plans, and (c) made prior to the hypothetical negotiation. Mr. Hedløy’s hindsight recollection of
`
`his bare guess from ten years ago as to the future sales of Microsoft is not a “projection.”
`
`Second, Mr. Weinstein relies on self-serving statements from Mr. Hedløy concerning
`
`litigation risk that have no support in evidence and contradict Mr. Hedløy’s own deposition
`
`testimony. The litigation risk figure and the resulting 4X multiplier is no better than an improper
`
`“rule of thumb.” Arendi argues that the 50% loss probability is tied to the facts of the case. It is
`
`not; it is an arbitrary figure that Mr. Hedløy believed, and Mr. Weinstein did not scrutinize,
`
`would be applicable to any litigation, and does not pass muster. This methodology is also
`
`directly at odds with the cases Arendi cites where the litigation risk multiplier was expressly set
`
`forth in license agreements or pre-litigation licensing documents. As such, the Court should
`
`exercise its gatekeeper function under Rule 702 and Daubert and exclude Mr. Weinstein’s
`
`opinions in their entirety.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 46615
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Weinstein Does Not Rely On Any Reliable Facts To Determine a
`Reasonable Royalty Based on the Microsoft Agreement
`
`In calculating a royalty rate from Arendi’s agreement with Microsoft, Arendi does not
`
`dispute that Mr. Weinstein relied exclusively on Mr. Hedløy’s “understanding” that Microsoft
`
`would “sell 60 million units worldwide in the first year of the agreement and 40 percent of those
`
`sales would occur in the U.S.” D.I. 292 at 4. Arendi argues that Mr. Weinstein’s methodology is
`
`proper because (1) experts can rely on comparable licenses and (2) use of sales projections to
`
`estimate a future royalty base has been approved by courts. Both arguments fail.
`
`First, Arendi spends considerable time addressing case law that supports deriving a
`
`royalty rate from comparable prior license agreements. D.I. 348 at 7-8. Arendi’s discussion of
`
`eight cases in this regard is irrelevant as Defendants do not dispute that, when using proper and
`
`reliable methodology, it may be appropriate to derive a royalty rate from comparable prior
`
`license agreements. Id. Defendants do not take issue with Mr. Weinstein’s use of a prior license
`
`agreement to derive a royalty rate. Rather, Defendants take issue with the methodology used in
`
`that analysis.
`
`Second, Arendi attempts to justify Mr. Weinstein’s methodology by arguing that reliance
`
`on sales projections is appropriate in deriving a royalty rate from prior license agreements.
`
`However, the “sales projections” relied on by Mr. Weinstein are sourced entirely from Mr.
`
`Hedløy – Arendi’s CEO and sole inventor. Indeed, Mr. Hedløy testified that he did not “
`
`
`
`,” and that Arendi
`
`
`
`.” D.I. 292 at 11. As such, Mr.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 46616
`
`Hedløy’s “understanding” of Microsoft’s “sale projections” was not based on any analysis. And,
`
`even worse, Mr. Weinstein did nothing to verify Mr. Hedløy’s self-serving “understanding.” Id.
`
`Mr. Hedløy’s self-serving statements regarding Microsoft’s “sale projections” are a far
`
`cry from the “sale projections” courts have allowed in determining a reasonable royalty from
`
`prior license agreements. Indeed, in this regard, each case cited by Arendi is distinguishable. In
`
`Interactive Pictures, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s damages award because the
`
`plaintiff’s damages expert based his royalty rate on the defendant’s sales projections that were
`
`taken from the defendant’s own business plan prepared near the time of the hypothetical
`
`negotiation. Interactive Pics. Corp. v. Infinite Pics., Inc., 274 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(“Because Martin’s use of the sales projections from the 1996 business plan was supported by
`
`evidence, not grossly excessive, nor based only on speculation and guesswork, we will not [sic]
`
`disturb the jury’s damage award on that basis.”). Here, Microsoft’s sales projections as relied on
`
`by Mr. Weinstein are not based on any business plans (written or oral). Similarly, in Evolved
`
`Wireless, the Court permitted use of sales projections in determining a lump sum royalty rate
`
`because the projections were based on past LTE sales and forecasts of Apple’s future LTE
`
`sales. Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-542-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1178517, at *3 (D.
`
`Del. Mar. 13, 2019). Here, Mr. Hedløy confirmed under oath that he was
`
`
`
` and, in fact, the evidentiary record shows that Mr. Hedløy’s
`
`“understanding” as to Microsoft’s sales projections amounts to nothing more than a hunch that
`
`was simply relied upon by Mr. Weinstein. And, finally, Arendi’s reliance on Yodlee for the
`
`proposition that it is reasonable for Arendi (rather than Defendants) to supply the sales
`
`projections is disingenuous. There, the plaintiff’s expert used the defendant’s actual financial
`
`information as a proxy for the plaintiff’s revenues in calculating damages, in addition to
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 46617
`
`expected revenue estimates generated by the plaintiff. Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Techs. Inc., No. 14-
`
`1445-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 466358, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2017). Unlike the present case, the
`
`plaintiff in Yodlee relied on actual, non-speculative information to calculate damages, and did
`
`not simply rely on an “understanding” or “perceptions” from the plaintiff’s representatives. D.I.
`
`348 at 9, n.10.
`
`Arendi then argues that it is entirely reasonable for Mr. Weinstein to rely on Mr.
`
`Hedløy’s self-serving statements because it captures Arendi’s “expectations of the value of the
`
`invention near the time of the hypothetical negotiation.” D.I. 348 at 11. Arendi’s argument is
`
`not only nonsensical, but it invites biased and improper information to be presented to the jury.
`
`Indeed, allowing an expert to rely on assumptions provided by his or her client, without any
`
`requirement that it be grounded in facts or tested by the expert, undermines the very purpose of
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 that seeks to exclude evidence that is not based on sufficient facts
`
`or data and is the product of unreliable methods. To that end, Arendi’s reliance on Inline
`
`Connection highlights this important point. While the court in Inline Connection allowed the
`
`expert to rely on assumptions provided by his client, that expert did “not exclusively rely on data
`
`from a single source” and the assumption was not in “contradiction to the factual evidence.”
`
`Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., 470 F. Supp. 2d 435, 442-43 (D. Del. 2007).
`
`Here, Mr. Weinstein only relies on one “data” source – Mr. Hedløy – and, by Mr. Hedløy’s own
`
`admission, the “data” is not based on any actual facts concerning Microsoft’s past or projected
`
`sales.
`
`Given that Mr. Weinstein has relied entirely on Mr. Hedløy’s post-hoc, unsupported
`
`predictions regarding Microsoft’s sales in deriving a royalty rate from the Microsoft Agreement,
`
`Mr. Weinstein has not applied a reliable methodology under the Daubert standard. Indeed, even
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 46618
`
`each case cited by Arendi highlights the impropriety of Mr. Weinstein’s reliance on Mr.
`
`Hedløy’s “understanding” regarding Microsoft’s projected sales. This unsubstantiated and
`
`unreliable testimony should be excluded. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147,
`
`152 (1999) (Rule 702 imposes a “special obligation upon a trial judge” to “ensure the reliability
`
`and relevancy of expert testimony” by precluding expert opinions that are neither reliable nor
`
`tied to the facts and circumstances of this case.)
`
`B.
`
`Mr. Weinstein’s 4X Multiplier Is Arbitrary and Unsupported By Any Facts
`
`Arendi also attempts to support Mr. Weinstein’s use of a random and arbitrary 4X
`
`multiplier to account for litigation risks without any factual support for how Mr. Weinstein
`
`arrived at this multiplier. Arendi’s argument, however, contradicts its own cited case law that
`
`clearly shows an expert must, at a minimum, base any litigation risk adjustments on factual
`
`evidence related to the case.
`
`For example, Arendi’s reliance on the Mondis decision highlights the importance of
`
`ensuring that litigation risk adjustments are based on concrete, factual evidence. There, the court
`
`upheld an expert’s determination that the 1% royalty rate should be tripled based on the
`
`uncertainty of litigation where the plaintiff had pre-litigation licensing documents that clearly
`
`stated the company’s “litigation rate” was three percent and the expert relied on information
`
`from “various license negotiations that show a 3% rate is an indicative post-litigation rate.”
`
`Mondis Tech., Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-565-TJW-CE, 2011 WL 2417367, at *7
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 14, 2011).2 Here, Mr. Weinstein’s 4X multiplier is not based on licensing
`
`documents.
`
`2 Although LG was the first-named defendant in the Mondis case caption, LG was no longer
`involved in that litigation when the Eastern District of Texas issued its opinion. LG has since
`challenged Mondis’s tripling multiplier in a subsequent litigation brought by Mondis against LG.
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 46619
`
`Similarly, in Multimedia Patent, the expert relied on previous agreements that contained
`
`a litigation discount (ranging from 20 to 55 percent) and then adjusted upward to determine a
`
`royalty rate. Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc., No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL
`
`5873711, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012). Here, no previous agreements include a litigation
`
`discount.
`
`And, in Saint Lawrence, Mr. Weinstein looked to actual license proposals made to the
`
`plaintiff that quantified a settlement discount and invalidity discount. Saint Lawrence Commc’ns
`
`LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-cv-349-JRG, 2017 WL 679623, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2017).
`
`Here, no license proposals quantified a settlement or invalidity discount.
`
`Finally, Arendi’s reliance on Robocast and Spectralytics is misplaced. Robocast, Inc. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA, 2014 WL 202399, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 16, 2014);
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 1336, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In both cases, the
`
`damages experts did not randomly assign a litigation risk percentage and apply that percentage to
`
`royalty rates, as Mr. Weinstein has in this case. Rather, Robocast and Spectralytics simply
`
`affirmed (and Defendants do not dispute for purposes of the present motion) the general principle
`
`that “it may [] be proper to adjust the reasonable royalty upwards due to [] uncertainty” regarding
`
`infringement and validity; those cases did not involve an unreliable rule-of-thumb-type
`
`multiplier based on unsupported statements of an interested party, like that Mr. Weinstein
`
`proposes. Robocast, 2014 WL 202399, at *3; see also Spectralytics, 649 F.3d at 1347 (affirming
`
`See Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 15-04431-SRC (D.N.J.). The details of that
`challenge (or the propriety of the multipliers in the other cases cited by Arendi) are not necessary
`to address here, as Defendants’ present challenge can be resolved based on the complete absence
`of any reliable evidence supporting Mr. Weinstein’s arbitrary 4X multiplier.
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 46620
`
`a jury’s damages award that was “within the amounts advocated by the opposing parties” and
`
`may have considered a litigation-related discount).
`
`Mr. Weinstein’s 4X multiplier as applied to the Microsoft, Samsung and MMI
`
`Agreements is not based on any license agreements, documents, or oral testimony as required by
`
`Arendi’s own cited case law. Rather, Mr. Weinstein’s analysis is based on, once again, Mr.
`
`Hedløy’s self-serving statement that Arendi assigned up to a 25% probability of prevailing in
`
`each of the Microsoft, Samsung and MMI litigations. Mr. Weinstein then waves his hands by
`
`opining that Arendi’s loss against Microsoft, this Court’s ruling on Section 101, losses in the IPR
`
`proceedings and losses in Arendi’s European patent litigation campaign support a 4X multiplier.
`
`However, there is no corroboration supporting this 4X multiplier as there was in cases cited by
`
`Arendi such as Saint Lawrence. In fact, Mr. Hedløy’s feelings on litigation risk were
`
`categorical, not tied to the specific circumstances in, for example, Arendi’s case against
`
`Microsoft: “
`
`
`
`” D.I. 292, Ex. G, Weinstein Dep. Tr. (LG), 117:19-22.
`
`Lastly, contrary to Arendi’s representation, Defendants do not contend that Mr.
`
`Weinstein applied a “rule of thumb” or Nash Bargaining Solution methodology. D.I. 348 at 15-
`
`16. Rather, the methodology employed here is similar to that of a “rule of thumb” analysis in
`
`that it relies on an arbitrary, unreliable, and irrelevant multiplier that is entirely unsupported by
`
`any facts. D.I. 292 at 14-16. Arendi has not provided any additional factual evidence to support
`
`Mr. Weinstein’s use of the random 4X multiplier and has not cited to any case law upholding this
`
`unsupported expert opinion. This Court should therefore exclude Mr. Weinstein’s opinion and
`
`prevent it from being presented at trial.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 46621
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court exclude Mr.
`
`Weinstein’s damages expert report and preclude Mr. Weinstein from testifying at trial.
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`
`/s/ Brian A. Biggs
`Brian A. Biggs (DE Bar No. 5591)
`Erin E. Larson (DE Bar No. 6616)
`1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: 302-468-5700
`Facsimile: 302-394-2341
`brian.biggs@us.dlapiper.com
`erin.larson@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`Dated: May 4, 2021
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark D. Fowler (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Christine K. Corbett (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Telephone: 650-833-2000
`Facsimile: 650-833-2001
`mark.fowler@us.dlapiper.com
`christine.corbett@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Robert C. Williams (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101-4297
`Telephone: 619-699-2700
`Facsimile: 619-699-2701
`robert.williams@us.dlapiper.com
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 46622
`
`Dated: May 4, 2021
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Steven R. Katz
`Jacob Pecht
`Eda Stark
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marine Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`(617) 542-5070
`katz@fr.com
`pecht@fr.com
`stark@fr.com
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`/s/ Jeremy D. Anderson
`Jeremy D. Anderson
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`P.O. Box 1114
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-5070
`janderson@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics
`USA Inc., LG Electronics Inc. and LG
`Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 46623
`
`Dated: May 4, 2021
`
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`
`
`/s/ Cortlan S. Hitch
`Kenneth L. Dorsney (No. 3726)
`Cortlan S. Hitch (No. 6720)
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 888-6800
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`chitch@morrisjames.com
`
`Attorney for BlackBerry Limited and Blackberry
`Corporation
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 46624
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`/s/ David Moore
`David E. Moore (No. 3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (No. 5370)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-60000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Motorola Mobililty LLC f/k/a
`Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Google Inc.
`
`Dated: May 4, 2021
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert Unikel
`Michelle Marek Figueiredo
`John Cotiguala
`Matt Lind
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 449-6000
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`
`Ariell Bratton
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`(858) 458-3000
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 46625
`
`Dated: May 4, 2021
`
`MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Anthony D. Raucci
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (No. 1014)
`Brian P. Egan (No. 6227)
`Anthony D. Raucci (No. 5948)
`1201 North Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`began@mnat.com
`araucci@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for defendants Oath Holdings, Inc. and
`Oath Inc.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 46626
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`rsmith@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sony Mobile
`Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Corporation
`and Sony Corporation of America
`
`Dated: May 4, 2021
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jeffri A. Kaminski
`Justin E. Pierce
`VENABLE LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 344-4000
`
`William A. Hector
`VENABLE LLP
`101 California Street, Suite 3800
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 653-3738
`
`Neha Bhat
`VENABLE LLP
`Rockefeller Center
`1270 Avenue of the America
`24th Floor
`New York, NY 10020
`(212) 307-5500
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 374 Filed 05/11/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 46627
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I, Brian A. Biggs, do hereby certify that on this 4th day of May, 2021, a true and correct
`copy of: DEFENTANTS’ REPLY IIN SUPPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE ROY
`WEINSTEIN’S OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY UNDER FED R. EVID. 702 AND
`DAUBERT was served on the following counsel of record vial electronic mail:
`
`Neal C. Belgam
`Eve H. Ormerod
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS,
`LLP
`1000 West Street
`Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`bas@skjlaw.com
`
`John P. Lahad
`Ibituroko-Emi Lawson
`Brenda Adimora
`Burton DeWitt
`Travis Korman
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street
`Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002
`jlahad@susmangodfrey.com
`elawson@susmangodfrey.com
`badimora@susmangodfrey.com
`bdewitt@susmangodfrey.com
`tkorman@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1900 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`
`WEST/293848698
`
`Seth Ard
`Max I. Straus
`Beatrice Franklin
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas
`32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kemper Diehl
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`/s/ Brian A. Biggs
`Brian A. Biggs
`
`14
`
`