Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 21593
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) Civil Action No. 15-542-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`______________________________________
`
`)
`
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) Civil Action No. 15-543-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and
`)
`
`
`HTC AMERJCA, INC.,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________
`
`)
`
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) Civil Action No. 15-544-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`LENOVO GROUP LTD., LENOVO
`)
`
`(UNITED STATES) INC., and
`
`)
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 21594
`
`
`)
`
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) Civil Action No. 15-545-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`)
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`
`)
`AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`_____________________________________ )
`
`)
`
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) Civil Action No. 15-546-JFB-SRF
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`_____________________________________ )
`
`
`EVOLVED WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`MICROSOFT MOBILE OY and
`
`NOKIA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 15-547-JFB-SRF
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on the following motions: defendant Apple Inc.’s
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`(“Apple”) motion (D.I. 275)1 and the joint motion by defendants in the above captioned
`
`___________________________________
`1 A corresponding motion in a related case is D.I. 270 in in Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
`(“Microsoft”), 1:15cv547.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 21595
`
`related cases (“the defendants”)(D.I. 278)2 to preclude testimony of Dr. Jonathan D.
`
`Putnam pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702; the defendants’ motion to preclude
`
`the testimony of Dr. Todor Cooklev under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403 (D.I.
`
`280);3 and plaintiff Evolved Wireless LLC’s (“Evolved”) motion to preclude the defendants’
`
`experts Ms. Shirley Webster, Dr. Michael Walker, Dr. Vernon Palmer, and Dr. Harry Bims)
`
`(D.I. 283).
`
`I.
`
`
`
`LAW
`
`In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993), the Supreme
`
`Court explained that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 creates “a gatekeeping role for the
`
`[trial] judge” in order to “ensur[e] that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable
`
`foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” In general, the Federal Circuit applies the
`
`law of the otherwise applicable regional circuit to issues not unique to patent law, including
`
`the admissibility of expert testimony. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d
`
`1283, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Whether proffered evidence is admissible at trial is a
`
`procedural issue not unique to patent law, and we therefore review the district court’s
`
`decision to admit expert testimony under the law of the regional circuit”).
`
`
`
`The rule requires that expert testimony “help the trier of fact to understand the
`
`evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). Expert testimony is
`
`admissible only if “the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data,” “the testimony is the
`
`___________________________________
`2 Corresponding motions in the related cases are: D.I. 285 in Evolved Wireless LLC (“Evolved”) v. HTC
`Corp. and HTC Am., Inc. (“HTC”), 1:15cv543; D.I. 254 in Evolved v. Motorola Mobility, LLC and Lenovo
`Corp. (”Motorola”), 1:15cv544; D.I. 290 in Evolved v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc.,
`(“Samsung”), 1:15cv545; D.I. 256 in Evolved v. ZTE (USA) Corp. (“ZTE”), 1:15cv546; and D.I. 264 in
`Evolved v. Microsoft, 1:15cv547. For ease of reference, the court will cite to filings in the Apple case.
`
` 3
`
` Corresponding motions are D.I. 287 in Evolved v. HTC, 1:15cv543; D.I. 256 in Evolved v. Motorola,
`1:15cv544; D.I. 292 in Evolved v. Samsung, 1:15cv545; D.I. 258 in Evolved v. ZTE, 1:15cv546; and D.I.
`266 in Evolved v. Microsoft, 1:15cv547.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 21596
`
`product of reliable principles and methods,” and “the expert has reliably applied the
`
`principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(b)–(d). The Third
`
`Circuit explains: “Rule 702 embodies a trilogy of restrictions on expert testimony:
`
`qualification, reliability and fit.” Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d
`
`396, 404 (3d Cir. 2003). Qualification refers to the requirement that the witness possess
`
`specialized expertise and the Third Circuit “interpret[s] this requirement liberally, holding
`
`that ‘a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert.’” Schneider, 320
`
`F.3d at 404 (quoting In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 742 (3rd Cir. 1994)).
`
`“Secondly, the testimony must be reliable; it ‘must be based on the ‘methods and
`
`procedures of science’ rather than on ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation” and
`
`“the expert must have ‘good grounds' for his or her belief.” Id. (quoting In re Paoli, 35
`
`F.3d at 742. Finally, Rule 702 requires that the expert testimony must fit the issues in the
`
`case. Id. “In other words, the expert’s testimony must be relevant for the purposes of the
`
`case and must assist the trier of fact.” Id. (noting that Rule 702’s “helpfulness” standard
`
`requires a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to
`
`admissibility).
`
`
`
`An expert’s opinion on a legal conclusion “is neither necessary nor controlling.”
`
`See High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc., 730 F.3d 1301, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(quoting Avia Grp. Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988),
`
`abrogated on other grounds by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (en banc). That said, an expert's opinion may be relevant to the factual aspects
`
`of the analysis leading to that legal conclusion. Id. When an expert’s methodology is
`
`sound, and the evidence relied upon is sufficiently related to the case at hand, disputes
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 21597
`
`about the degree of relevance or accuracy (above this minimum threshold) may go to the
`
`testimony’s weight, but not its admissibility.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d
`
`831, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff’d, 564 U.S. 91 (2011).
`
`
`
`An expert should not be excluded “simply because the trial court does not deem
`
`the proposed expert to be the best qualified or because the proposed expert does not
`
`have the specialization that the court considers most appropriate.” Pineda v. Ford Motor
`
`Co., 520 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (allowing an engineer to testify about the
`
`inadequacy of a service manual warning for an automobile liftgate, even though the expert
`
`had not designed automobile liftgates or drafted service manuals). The question of
`
`whether the expert is credible, or the opinion is correct, is generally a question for the fact
`
`finder, not the court. Summit 6, LLC, 802 F.3d at 1296; see Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`
`757 F.3d 1286, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014), overruled en banc in part not relevant here,
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Indeed,
`
`‘[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction
`
`on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but
`
`admissible evidence.’” Summit 6, LLC, 802 F.3d at 1296 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at
`
`596).
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that estimating a reasonable
`
`royalty is not an exact science. Id. The record may support a range of reasonable
`
`royalties, rather than a single value. Id. Likewise, there may be more than one reliable
`
`method for estimating a reasonable royalty.” Id. (quoting Apple, 757 F.3d at 1315). An
`
`expert’s proposed reasonable royalty rate must be tied to the facts of the case. Exmark
`
`Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1349 (Fed.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 21598
`
`Cir. 2018). “Questions about what facts are most relevant or reliable to calculating a
`
`reasonable royalty are for the jury.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 856
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010), aff’d, 564 U.S. 91 (2011).
`
`
`
`
`
`When the accused infringing products have both patented and unpatented
`
`features, measuring this value requires a determination of the value added by such
`
`features. Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Also,
`
`when dealing with SEPs, not only must the patented feature be apportioned from all the
`
`unpatented features reflected in the standard, but the royalty must be premised on the
`
`value of the patented feature, not any value added by the standard’s adoption of the
`
`patented technology. Id. at 1232. The question of whether license agreements are
`
`sufficiently comparable generally goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
`
`Id. at 1227-28.
`
`
`
`As with other testimony, even expert testimony that is relevant and reliable may be
`
`challenged under Federal Rules of Evidence 403, which permits the exclusion of evidence
`
`on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; Banks v.
`
`United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 41, 47 (2010) (“And, as with other testimony, even expert
`
`testimony which is relevant and reliable may be challenged under FRE 403, which permits
`
`the exclusion of evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion or waste of time”). Under
`
`Rule 403, “the probative value of the evidence must be ‘substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of unfair prejudice . . . ’ before it may be excluded.” Mendenhall v. Cedarapids,
`
`Inc., 5 F.3d 1557, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original). “Unfair prejudice” within
`
`its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 21599
`
`commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one. Id.; see Rule 403 Advisory
`
`Committee Note.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Defendants’ Motions
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Jonathan D. Putnam
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Apple’s Motion (D.I. 275)
`
`Dr. Putnam is Evolved’s damages expert. Apple challenges Dr. Putnam’s “top-
`
`down” approach to calculate per patent royalty rates. It also challenges Dr. Putman’s
`
`calculation of damages using a lump-sum payment structure, in recognition of Apple’s
`
`strong preference, and common practice, of structuring license agreements as a lump
`
`sum, and LGE’s preference for lump sum compensation in negotiations for a license
`
`agreement with Apple.
`
`
`
`Apple asserts that Dr. Putnam’s lump-sum damages calculation includes damages
`
`for future Apple products that Evolved has not accused in this case. It contends Dr.
`
`Putnam’s lump-sum methodology is flawed in that seeking damages for these products
`
`violates the basic principle that a plaintiff in a patent suit may only be awarded damages
`
`for an infringer’s use of the patented invention in infringing products, arguing that if a
`
`product is not accused in the case, it cannot be an infringing product.4
`
`___________________________________
`4 Dr. Putnam calculates the lump sum payment assuming that the parties would have identified Apple’s
`past sales of accused products and forecast Apple’s future sales. Apple contends that if Dr. Putnam’s
`forecast is to be based only on the products accused in this case, he would have had to assume that the
`accused products will be sold through 2026 and there is no evidence to support that assumption. Apple
`states the evidence shows that it historically sells a particular iPhone or iPad model in the United States for
`only a few years and with the advent of each new iPhone or iPad model, sales of older models are typically
`phased out.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 21600
`
`
`
`In opposition, Evolved contends that a lump sum royalty determination may
`
`consider sales of future products. It points to the difference between a lump-sum and a
`
`running royalty and argues that Dr. Putnam was justified in looking to forecasts of Apple’s
`
`future LTE sales to support his lump sum calculation. Evolved asserts that the credibility
`
`of any forecast is an issue of weight that should be left for the jury.
`
`
`
`The Court finds Apple’s motion should be denied. Any alleged flaws in the expert’s
`
`damages theory concern the weight to be afforded the testimony, not its admissibility.
`
`Effective cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence should be
`
`adequate to prevent the jury from being misled. Challenges to the testimony may require
`
`a cautionary instruction, but the Court cannot determine the ambit of such an instruction
`
`at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Defendants’ Joint Motion (D.I. 278)
`
`Defendants challenge Dr. Putnam’s unreliable “citation analysis,” arguing it should
`
`be excluded as unreliable.5 They argue Dr. Putnam’s “top-down” damages approach
`
`violates the basic tenets of calculating a reasonable royalty in that he does not apportion the
`
`features of the ’236 and ’373 Patents from the unpatented features of defendants’ accused
`
`devices. Further, they contend that, though Dr. Putnam admits that the entire market value
`
`rule does not apply to his “top-down” approach, he nonetheless applies the entire market rule
`
`in refusing to reduce his proposed damages base to the smallest component that purportedly
`
`embodies the asserted patented technology—here, the baseband chipset.
`
`
`
`In response, Evolved argues that Dr. Putnam’s detailed analysis and opinions are
`
`supported by the evidence and by his experience, specialized training, and professional
`
`___________________________________
`5 Forward citation analysis is a method of estimating the value of particular patent based on the number
`of times the patent is cited by later patents.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 21601
`
`judgment. They argue Dr. Putnam’s methodology and qualifications are more than
`
`enough to satisfy Daubert and his testimony will assist the jury in determining the outcome
`
`of a hypothetical negotiation for a FRAND license to the patents-in-suit. Further, Evolved
`
`argues that the defendants’ criticism of Dr. Putnam’s position goes the weight of Dr.
`
`Putnam’s testimony rather than to its admissibility.
`
`
`
`The Court again finds that the defendants’ arguments relate to the weight and not
`
`the admissibility of Dr. Putnam’s testimony. The defendants’ additional arguments are
`
`unavailing. The citation analysis method has generally been regarded as reliable.
`
`Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP, 218 F. Supp. 3d 375, 383
`
`& n.8 (E.D. Pa. 2016). The defendants’ critique of his application of the method is a matter
`
`for cross-examination. Objections to opinions involving apportionment and the entire
`
`market value rule can similarly be addressed in cross-examination.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Todor Cooklev (D.I. 280)
`
`Todor Cooklev is Evolved’s infringement and validity expert. Apple and the other
`
`defendants move to preclude Dr. Todor Cooklev’s infringement opinions under Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 702 and 403 (D.I. 280). They contend that Dr. Cooklev’s infringement
`
`opinions are heavily based on two types of TechPats testing that are unreliable,
`
`speculative, inapplicable to the asserted patents, and/or incomplete. They argue that
`
`opinions based on the field testing must be excluded. Further, they argue that the
`
`probative value of Dr. Cooklev’s conclusions relying on the TechPats test reports are
`
`outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury.
`
`
`
`In response, Evolved contends that the underlying emulation and field testing are
`
`the products of reliable principles and methods. They submit that field testing, like that
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 21602
`
`performed by TechPats, is commonly used in the industry. Indeed, Evolved argues that
`
`the defendants themselves conduct similar conformance tests on their own devices.
`
`Evolved contends that the defendants’ challenge to Dr. Cooklev’s reliance on the
`
`TechPats emulation testing goes to the weight of his testimony rather than to its
`
`admissibility. Evolved also asserts that Dr. Cooklev’s opinions do not present a risk of
`
`misleading the jury under Rule 403.
`
`
`
`The Court agrees that the defendants’ criticisms go more to weight than
`
`admissibility. Dr. Cooklev’s reliance on the tests can be challenged in cross-examination.
`
`The Court further finds the probative value of the evidence does not appear to be
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice or confusion, but it is difficult to make
`
`that determination in the context of a pretrial motion. Any danger of confusing or
`
`misleading the jury may be obviated by an appropriate cautionary or limiting instruction
`
`during trial or by appropriate jury instructions at the end of trial. The Court will overrule
`
`the defendants’ motion at this time, without prejudice to a timely objection at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Evolved’s Motion (D.I. 283)
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Ms. Shirley Webster
`
`Ms. Shirley Webster is an Apple damages expert. Evolved moves to exclude Ms.
`
`Webster’s opinion on comparable licenses, contending her methodology is flawed and is
`
`based on insufficient facts or data. It also contends that Ms. Webster does not have the
`
`technical background to state an opinion as to the “Apple FRAND framework” and asserts
`
`her opinions on royalties “suggested” by the “Apple FRAND framework” are not tied the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 21603
`
`facts of the case and are based on speculation.6 Further, it contends that Ms. Webster’s
`
`opinion based on the purchase price of the patents-in-suit is not supported by the
`
`evidence and is unreliable and further contends Ms. Webster is not qualified to opine on
`
`the forward citation analysis performed by Dr. Putnam.7 Further, they argue that Ms.
`
`Webster’s contradictory ex ante opinion will confuse the jury.8
`
`
`
`In response, defendants argue that Evolved’s basis for seeking to exclude the Ms.
`
`Webster’s opinions amount only to disagreement with her conclusions and its criticisms
`
`go to the weight of her testimony, not its admissibility. They argue that Ms. Webster’s
`
`“Apple FRAND analysis,” consideration of purchase price, and ex ante analysis are
`
`proper under the facts and the law.
`
`
`
`The Court finds the record shows that Webster relies on agreements that appear
`
`technologically comparable to the patents-in-suit in that they involve a specific aspect of
`
`mobile devices—declared-essential cellular technology. Evolved’s arguments on
`
`comparability generally go to the weight, not the admissibility of the comparison evidence.
`
`As to Ms. Webster’s testimony on the Apple FRAND framework analysis, as long as
`
`evidence supports that licensing approach, the analysis appears reliable. Again, subject
`
`to a showing of proper foundation, Evolved’s criticisms go to the weight of the evidence
`
`and are properly the subject of cross-examination and competing evidence.
`
`___________________________________
`6 This relates to the methodology Apple uses to develop a compensation reference point for license
`agreements for cellular SEPs. Apple contends it would have applied the methodology in a hypothetical
`negotiation for the patents in-suit.
`
`7 The forward citation method has generally been regarded as reliable. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC
`v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP, 218 F. Supp. 3d 375, 383 & n.8 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
`
`8 This critique is directed to Ms. Webster’s testimony on the applicable date for a hypothetical negotiation
`and her conclusion that the compensation for a FRAND-encumbered patent must be considered ex ante
`to avoid capturing the value of the standard itself in the royalty resulting from the hypothetical negotiation.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 21604
`
`
`
`Ms. Webster’s reliance on purchase price as a factor in her damage’s analysis
`
`must also be supported by evidence but Evolved has not shown that a use of a purchase
`
`price for the patents-in-suit is categorically unreliable or subject to exclusion under
`
`Daubert. Any failure of Ms. Webster’s analysis to account for actual terms of the
`
`agreement, or to consider risks in monetizing the patents, is a matter for cross-
`
`examination.
`
`
`
` The Court also finds Webster is qualified to offer an opinion on Dr. Putnam’s
`
`citation analysis method. She is a managing director of a firm providing financial products
`
`and services related to intellectual property and has provided financial and economic
`
`consulting services for over thirty years. She has conducted valuation, licensing
`
`negotiations, and strategic management studies involving intellectual property and has
`
`determined reasonable royalty and lost profits damages for patent infringement and
`
`analyzed damages in other types of intellectual property disputes. The method is
`
`generally regarded as reliable and Evolved can address any shortcomings and challenge
`
`the probative value of such evidence in cross-examination. There is no requirement that
`
`an expert must perform an analysis in order to analyze another expert’s performance.
`
`
`
`The Court also finds Webster’s ex ante analysis appears to conform to the law as
`
`it relates to establishing royalties for SEPs. See, e.g., In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC
`
`Patent Litig., MDL Docket No. 2303, No. 11 C 9308, 2013 WL 559 3609, *8, *40 (N.D. Ill.
`
`Oct. 3, 2013) (noting parties’ agreement that the appropriate date for the hypothetical
`
`negotiation was the time of adoption of the standards); see also Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Motorola, Inc., No. C10-1823JLR, 2013 WL 2111217, *18 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 3, 2013).
`
`Evolved has not shown that Ms. Webster’s ex ante considerations as part of the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 21605
`
`hypothetical negotiation should be excluded. The evidence appears no more likely to
`
`confuse the jury than other technical evidence in this case. Evolved’s criticisms can be
`
`addressed in cross-examination or via timely objections at trial. Evolved’s motion to
`
`exclude Ms. Webster’s opinions will be denied at this time without prejudice to reassertion
`
`via timely objections at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Mr. Michael Walker
`
`Mr. Walker is an expert on the standards-setting process at European
`
`Telecommunications Standard Institute (“ETSI”) and the Third Generation Partnership
`
`Project (“3GPP”), including the obligations that ETSI and 3GPP impose on their members
`
`to disclose intellectual property rights during the standard-setting process and the
`
`ongoing obligations that these members have to grant a license to these declared
`
`intellectual property rights on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms
`
`and conditions. Walker will offer an opinion relating to Apple’s conduct with respect to
`
`seeking injunctive relief without offering a license for each of the Asserted Patents on
`
`FRAND terms.
`
`
`
`Evolved contends Walker’s opinion, that it was obligated to offer Qualcomm a
`
`license, should be excluded under Rule 702(b) as there is no such requirement under the
`
`ETSI IPR Policy. It also objects to Walker’s opinions on disclosure obligations,
`
`contending that Apple is not asserting a defense of untimely disclosure and contends that
`
`Walker’s opinions regarding ETSI’s disclosure obligations are not tied to the facts of this
`
`case.
`
`
`
`The defendants, on the other hand, contend Walker’s testimony regarding ETSI
`
`disclosure obligations are merely background that provide context for his opinions. They
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 21606
`
`argue Evolved provides no explanation as to why this background is not relevant to Mr.
`
`Walker’s opinions or how it would allegedly “confuse the jury.”
`
`
`
`The Court has determined that the breach of FRAND obligations issue is a matter
`
`for determination by the Court. Accordingly, the motion will be granted to the extent that
`
`the evidence relates to the issues that are to be tried to the Court. It may be appropriate
`
`for some evidence to be presented outside the presence of the jury, but the Court cannot
`
`determine that at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Dr. Vernon Palmer
`
`Dr. Vernon Palmer provides opinions that ETSI’s FRAND commitment provides a
`
`binding contractual commitment between ETSI and LGE (the original assignee of the
`
`patents-in-suit), that as a successor-in-interest to the patents-in-suit, Evolved is bound by
`
`this same contractual commitment, and that this contractual commitment is for the benefit
`
`of, and is enforceable by, third parties, such as Apple. This testimony also relates to the
`
`breach of FRAND obligations and licensing issues that will be tried to the court.
`
`Accordingly, the motion is sustained with respect to testimony that is not relevant to the
`
`infringement and validity issues that will be decided by the jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Dr. Harry Bims
`
`Dr. Harry Bims is Apple’s expert on invalidity. Evolved contends that Dr. Harry
`
`Bims’s opinion on non-infringing alternatives should be excluded because they were
`
`purportedly not “available” when infringement purportedly began. Also, they contend that
`
`Dr. Bims’s obviousness opinion for the ’373 patent is unreliable because he does not
`
`articulate a motivation to combine the specific references. Further, Evolved argues that
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 21607
`
`Dr. Bims’s opinions on anticipation of the ’373 patent should be excluded because he
`
`does not apply this Court’s claim construction.
`
`
`
`The defendants argue that Bims’s testimony on non-infringing alternatives amount
`
`to internal implementation details that would allow the accused Apple products to remain
`
`interoperable with existing LTE networks without any modification to the LTE standard.
`
`
`
`Whether the noninfringing alternatives were available is a matter that can be
`
`addressed in cross-examination. There is no requirement that a noninfringing alternative
`
`is commercially available, but there must be evidence that it can be implemented. Also,
`
`there appears to be support for Dr. Bims’s testimony on motivation to combine and
`
`Evolved can pursue whatever shortcomings there may be on cross-examination. Further,
`
`it appears that Evolved’s arguments with respect to claim construction are merely a
`
`disagreement with Dr. Bims’s analysis. The Court cannot determine Dr. Bims’s
`
`adherence to the Court’s claim construction in the context of this motion. Evolved can
`
`raise any objections at trial.
`
`
`
`The Court finds Evolved’s criticisms go to the weight not the admissibility of Dr.
`
`Bims’s testimony or are properly the subject of a timely objection at trial. Evolved’s motion
`
`to exclude Dr. Bims’s testimony will be denied at this time without prejudice to reassertion
`
`at trial.
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED:
`
`1.
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s motion to preclude testimony of Dr. Jonathan D.
`
`Putnam (D.I. 275) is denied;
`
`3.
`
`Defendants’ joint motion to preclude testimony of Dr. Jonathan D. Putnam
`
`(D.I. 278) is denied.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00547-JFB-SRF Document 409 Filed 03/13/19 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 21608
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Todor
`
`Cooklev (D.I. 280) is denied.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Evolved Wireless LLC’s motion to preclude the defendants’ experts
`
`(D.I. 283) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this order.
`
`DATED this 12th day of March, 2019.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
`Senior United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`