Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 49204
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`REDACTED
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION TO PRECLUDE INADMISSIBLE
`AND UNDISCLOSED DAMAGES THEORIES AND EVIDENCE
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Louis L. Campbell
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`Sean H. Suber
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 49205
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Anup K. Misra
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Joseph C. Masullo
`Paul N. Harold
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`B. Trent Webb
`Aaron E. Hankel
`Jordan T. Bergsten
`Maxwell C. McGraw
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`
`Original Filing Date: October 11, 2018
`Redacted Filing Date: October 23, 2018
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 49206
`
`With its sole expert reasonable royalty opinion having been excluded, Acceleration seeks at
`
`the eleventh hour to advance three royalty claims through a “fact-based” damages theory. Each of
`
`the royalty claims is based exclusively on a 15.5% rate that is unsupported by admissible evidence.
`
`Acceleration’s CEO selected the rate from a third-party Internet website that has nothing to do with
`
`the patents, the accused products or the patented technology. Acceleration’s other proposed fact
`
`witness, its Vice President of Licensing, admits
`
`
`
`
`
` Neither witness can discuss a hypothetical negotiation between Boeing and
`
`Activision because they were not at either company ever. In short, Acceleration has no evidence of a
`
`“fact-based” hypothetical negotiation to support any rate, let alone the 15.5% rate it seeks. And it
`
`certainly has no witness who can apply any royalty to a properly apportioned royalty base. Nor does
`
`it have any facts or opinions that would allow a jury to determine cost savings or apportion them to
`
`patented technology. The only damages claims Acceleration now advances depend exclusively on
`
`the 15.5% royalty rate, and those three claims are inadmissible.
`
`I.
`
`Acceleration’s “fact-based damages claim” is not admissible.
`
`A reasonable royalty “derives from a hypothetical negotiation between the patentee and the
`
`infringer when the infringement began.” ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). It “require[s]” an “analysis” showing “the contribution of the patented technology to the
`
`accused products.” Bio-Rad Labs, Inc., et al. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., 2018 WL 4691047, at *8 n.3
`
`(D. Del. Sept. 28, 2018). A reasonable royalty “requires the patentee to reconstruct the market, by
`
`definition a hypothetical enterprise, to project economic results that did not occur.” Riles v. Shell
`
`Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302. This “requires sound economic proof of the nature of the
`
`market and likely outcomes with infringement factored out of the economic picture.” Id. A party
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 49207
`
`“cannot make arguments based on non-expert testimony that it could not make based on expert
`
`testimony.” AVM Techs., LLC v. Intel Corp., 2017 WL 1753999, at *2 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
`
`Acceleration’s present damages claims all rely on the 15.5% rate, but Acceleration has
`
`identified no admissible evidence to support that rate (or any other royalty rate). Acceleration does
`
`not dispute that the 15.5% rate was plucked from an unauthenticated document prepared by some
`
`unknown person and was found on a third-party website. The document is inadmissible hearsay and
`
`violates the “rule of thumb” prohibition because it is not tied to the facts of this case. Op. Br. at 10.
`
`For instance, Acceleration has no expert or fact witness who can explain: (1) what that un-
`
`unidentified and un-consulted author of the document means when he or she says that 15.5% is the
`
`“Industry Standard Royalty Rate[]” for “Entertainment” (with a picture of a drama mask); (2) what
`
`real-world patent licenses, if any, went into that rate; or (3) why “Entertainment” applies to
`
`Activision, Boeing, and these patents instead of other listed rates, like “Aerospace” at 4.00%,
`
`“Internet” at 8.20%, or “Media and Entertainment” (with a picture of a “TV”) at 6.50%. Op. Br., Ex.
`
`8. In short, after multiple opportunities, Acceleration has failed to point to a shred of evidence for
`
`where this 15.5% royalty came from, or whether and how it is in any way tied to the facts of this
`
`case.
`
`Nor can Mr. Garland or Mr. Ward provide any personal knowledge on the basis for a 15.5%
`
`royalty rate or on its applicability to the hypothetical negotiation. First, as this Court has
`
`acknowledged, the “hypothetical negotiation” would have been “with, presumably, Boeing, not
`
`Acceleration Bay, as one party to the negotiation.” (D.I. 521). This is because the hypothetical
`
`negotiation would have occurred nearly ten years before Acceleration acquired the patents. (Id.)
`
`Neither Mr. Ward nor Mr. Garland has any relevant factual information to offer because they never
`
`worked at Activision or Boeing, let alone in a licensing position.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 49208
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 5 of 13 PagelD #: 49208
`
`Second, Messrs. Ward and Garland confirmed at their depositions that Po
`
`unprivileged knowledge on the 15.5% rate. Acceleration’s initial disclosures state Mr. Garland has
`
`“{k]nowledge regarding Acceleration Bay’s licensing activities.”
`
`Ex. 3, Acceleration’s
`
`Supplemental Initial Disclosures at 3. He testifiedi
`
`Ex. 1, Garland Dep. Tr. 52:25-53:8. Mr. Garland confirmed
`
`EE x.|, Garland Dep Tr. 37:19-39:21, 53:15-55:4,
`
`30:12-31:1. Acceleration suggests that Mr. Ward may haveadditional, undisclosed information
`
`about the royalty rate, and faults Activision for deciding “not to inquire into Mr. Ward’s bases for
`
`the rate.” Op. Br. at 9. But, Mr. Ward testifiedPe
`
`ee
`
`Ex. 2, Ward Dep. 223:9-22, 233:9-21, 286:6-287:7,
`
`323:16-25; 330:1-333:3. When asked aboutpatent valuation and prospectivelicensees, he refused to
`
`answerthe questions on the basis of attorney-client privilege except to sayht
`
`Po Ex. 2, Ward Dep. 226:25-227:7, 286:9. Mr. Ward repeatedly disavowed any
`
`knowledge of any economic facts which could possibly value the patents to Activision.’
`
`Acceleration similarly suggests that it may offer an opinion from Mr. Garland,“based on his
`
`decades of experience licensing intellectual property,” but neither Mr. Garland nor Mr. Ward was
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 49209
`
`offered as an expert. Op. Br. at 9. Acceleration committed to provide reports for all expert
`
`testimony, and did not provide a report for either Mr. Garland or Mr. Ward. Nor can they offer lay
`
`opinions. 360 Mortg. Grp., LLC v. Homebridge Fin. Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 6084179, at *4
`
`(W.D. Tex. May 6, 2016) (precluding a lay opinion on reasonable royalty).
`
`The only other evidence Acceleration’s brief identifies is a “Microsoft Publisher
`
`Agreement.” Op. Br. at 10. That agreement is a publisher agreement, not a patent license. It is
`
`between Activision and Microsoft and provides Activision with access to the Microsoft xBox
`
`platform including the ability to sell games to play on the xBox platform. No witness has testified
`
`that the Microsoft agreement is technically or economically comparable to the patented technology.
`
`In fact, Acceleration’s damages expert, Dr. Meyer, opined that the Microsoft Agreement was “not
`
`directly comparable to a patent license.” Meyer Report ¶¶ 11, 72 (emphasis added). Dr. Meyer
`
`made no attempt to tie the non-comparable Microsoft agreement to any royalty rate, let alone a
`
`15.5% rate. In any event, the agreement is plainly inadmissible. ResQNet.com, Inc., 594 F.3d at 872
`
`(relying on license with no reasonable “link” to the patents “violates the statutory requirement that
`
`damages under § 284 be ‘adequate to compensate for the infringement.’”).
`
`Acceleration simply has no admissible evidence to support the 15.5% royalty it seeks (or any
`
`other rate), and this lack of proof is fatal to all of the damages theories it now advances. D.I. 581,
`
`Ex. 2. Moreover, even if Acceleration had admissible evidence of a royalty rate, it would still lack
`
`an “analysis” applying that rate to its proposed royalty bases. Bio-Rad Labs, WL 4691047, at *8 n.3.
`
`The rate is not accompanied by any damages calculation and would be untethered to any underlying
`
`royalty base. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Commc’ns, LLC, 2018 WL 1460703, at *3 (E.D. Va.
`
`Mar. 23, 2018) (a party cannot, “without the aid of an expert,” present damages “the Court would
`
`preclude an expert from testifying about, were an expert available”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 49210
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), does not give Acceleration
`
`carte blanche to present whatever evidence it wishes. There, unlike here, Apple had admissible
`
`expert testimony supporting a royalty rate. Id. at 1329. The district court had awarded a royalty of
`
`zero despite the existence of admissible damages evidence. Id. at 1327. Here, Acceleration has no
`
`admissible evidence for the three damages claims it now seeks to advance.
`
`“As a matter of law, [Acceleration] cannot introduce a damages theory to the jury without
`
`establishing its reliability.” AVM Techs., LLC v. Intel Corp., 927 F. Supp. 2d 139, 147 (D. Del.
`
`2013). Acceleration needs “a reliable measure of damages,” not a bricolage of unconnected and
`
`inadmissible facts. Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., 2018 WL 1156284, at *9 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 5, 2018) (dismissing claims where, after exclusion of damages expert, plaintiff failed to
`
`“to point to any reliable measure of damages”). No royalty is required “in the absence of any
`
`evidence from which a court may derive a reasonable royalty.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH
`
`v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., Harris Press & Shear Div., 895 F.2d 1403, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
`
`(quoting omitted); see also Apple, 757 F.3d at fn. 7 (“In the absence of any evidence as to what
`
`would constitute a reasonable royalty in a given case, a fact finder would have no means of arriving
`
`at a reasonable royalty, and none could be awarded.”) (quoting omitted). That is the case here.
`
`II.
`
`Acceleration acknowledges it lacks an expert damages case.
`
`During discovery, Acceleration repeatedly stated that its expert reports would explain the
`
`15.5% royalty rate, the bases and theories it now seeks to advance. D.I. 581, Ex. 3 at 8. But none
`
`did. It is undisputed that none of Acceleration’s remaining expert disclosures even mentions any
`
`royalty rate, let alone the 15.5% royalty rate. No expert provides an admissible damages analysis
`
`based on any royalty rate. Having failed to even try to support the 15.5% rate in its expert reports,
`
`Acceleration cannot now cobble together a damages case from bits and pieces of expert testimony.
`
`As explained in Activision’s opening brief, Exmark requires exclusion of Dr. Meyer’s and the
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 49211
`
`subordinate damages related expert opinions she relies on because none of those opinions are tied in
`
`any way to the rate or damages that Acceleration now seeks. Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs &
`
`Stratton Power Prod. Grp., LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Exmark’s damages
`
`expert’s opinion was inadmissible as it failed to adequately tie the expert’s proposed reasonable
`
`royalty rate to the facts of this case.).
`
`Acceleration does not deny that Exmark requires exclusion of these opinions, but instead
`
`makes a procedural objection that Activision impermissibly is seeking reconsideration of this
`
`Court’s Daubert rulings. This is incorrect. Neither Dr. Meyer nor any other Acceleration expert has
`
`ever offered a 15.5% rate opinion so Activision could not have moved to exclude it.
`
`Dr. Meyer offered Acceleration’s only damages analysis, and it was based entirely on the
`
`now-excluded Uniloc verdict. Thus, she has nothing else to testify about. Id. Ignoring Exmark,
`
`Acceleration suggests Dr. Meyer may offer a “Georgia-Pacific” analysis (Op. Br. at 10), but she
`
`cannot offer that analysis because she never opines on the 15.5% rate or any of the three new bases
`
`or on how the Georgia-Pacific factors would apply to the new fact-based theory.
`
`Nor can any other expert offer damages-related testimony. Dr. Meyer discussed opinions of
`
`other experts, but only to support Georgia Pacific factors in her now excluded Uniloc-based opinion.
`
`For instance, she discusses the reports of Drs. Bims, Medvidovic, Mitzenmacher and Valerdi in
`
`connection with Georgia Pacific factors 9 and 10 regarding the utility and nature of the patented
`
`invention and non-infringing alternatives. Meyer Report (D.I. 444, Ex. C-3) ¶¶51-57, 140. But the
`
`only purpose of those opinions was to support Dr. Meyer’s analysis of the Uniloc verdict. The other
`
`experts did not offer any damages analysis, never discussed any royalty rate, and never offered any
`
`calculation of damages. When the Court excluded the Uniloc verdict, the consequence was the other
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 49212
`
`damages-related opinions of the other experts all became inadmissible because none of them is tied
`
`to any royalty other than the now-excluded Uniloc based royalty.
`
`Acceleration also suggests it may rely on “Dr. Meyer’s reliance on Dr. Valerdi’s cost-savings
`
`opinions.” Op. Br. at 11. But Dr. Meyer did not base any calculation on Dr. Valerdi’s opinion.
`
`Instead, she simply uses his opinion to “further reinforce” that there was supposedly no
`
`“economically viable” alternative to the patents when the Complaint was filed. Meyer Report
`
`(D.I. 444, Ex. C-3) ¶¶54-57.
`
`Nor are Dr. Valerdi’s opinions independently admissible. He did not purport to calculate
`
`damages, cost savings, or determine a royalty rate or base. No other witness—not even Dr. Meyer—
`
`“tie[s]” Dr. Valerdi’s opinions to rate Acceleration now asserts. Exmark, 879 F.3d at 1349–350.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Valerdi did not calculate “cost savings” at all. Nothing in Dr. Valderdi’s report
`
`explains any costs that Activision supposedly saved by using the patented inventions. Instead, he
`
`purports to quantify the cost, today, of re-writing every aspect of the accused games from scratch. He
`
`“estimates for the cost of rearchitecting” (i.e. rewriting every line of code in every game) without
`
`regard to whether that code relates to the patented technology. Valerdi Rept. (D.I. 444, Ex. C-2) at
`
`3, Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. Tr. 97:19-98:11. Indeed, even Dr. Meyer opined that Dr. Valerdi’s opinions
`
`lacked independent force: his
`
` estimate meant a new networking platform was not
`
`“economically viable,” and thus “it is necessary to rely on other indicators of value available in the
`
`marketplace to determine a reasonable royalty in this matter.” See Meyer Report (D.I. 444, Ex. C-3)
`
`¶57.
`
`III. Acceleration earlier abandoned the rate and theories it now seeks to advance.
`
`Acceleration does not dispute that its expert reports totally abandoned the rate and theories
`
`identified in its interrogatory response in favor of the now-excluded theory based on the Uniloc
`
`verdict. If Acceleration intended to pursue these theories, it was required by Special Master Order
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 49213
`
`No. 32 to identify all of the evidence in support of them and to provide a computation of damages
`
`under these theories. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. ZOLL LifeCor Corp., 2017 WL 4764670, at
`
`*6 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2017). It did neither. By failing to do so, and by abandoning the theories in
`
`the expert reports, Acceleration waived any right to a “fact-based damages” claim under them.
`
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp., 875 F.3d 651, 662 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Acceleration argues that it should be allowed to proceed with an unbounded “fact based”
`
`damages case because the Special Master supposedly considered this very issue and found “that
`
`Acceleration Bay sufficiently disclosed it damages case in its Damages Rog Response.” This is
`
`incorrect. The only time the Special Master addressed the substance of the interrogatory response,
`
`he found it was “conclusory” and unsupported, and denied an Acceleration discovery motion on that
`
`ground. D.I. 290 (SM Order No. 10) at 3–4. (“Plaintiff claims a royalty of 15.5 percent with no
`
`explanation for that rate and calculates a
`
` damage claim for each defendant without
`
`specificity. In light of Plaintiff’s conclusory damages claim, there is little justification for
`
`[Plaintiff’s Motion to compel further information from Activision regarding Activision’s damages
`
`theory.]”).3
`
`A review of Acceleration’s interrogatory response confirms that it does not disclose
`
`admissible facts with respect to the rate, the base, or the methodology. Regarding rate, the response
`
`states only that the 15.5% rate is “based on industry information” and “is the subject of expert
`
`
`2 D.I. 155 (Special Master Order No. 3) at 7–8 (explaining that “defendant is entitled to facts as
`to plaintiff’s damages claims prior to receiving plaintiff’s expert reports”); D.I. 193 Confirming
`that Order.
`3 Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Special Master Order No. 6 does not bless the interrogatory
`response. Instead, the Special Master denied Defendants’ motion for preclusion “without prejudice”
`pending review of Plaintiff’s expert reports. D.I. 227 (Special Master Order No. 6) at 7 (“the test of
`whether Plaintiff is withholding information that should have been disclosed … will be better known
`when Plaintiff submits its expert reports.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 49214
`
`opinion.” D.I. 581, Ex. 3 at 8. But, no “industry information” was identified as supporting the rate
`
`and there is no expert opinion. Id. Regarding the base and theories, Plaintiff merely identifies five
`
`theories/bases and promises that its “damages expert…will address them… in an expert report after
`
`the close of fact discovery.” Id. at 5. None did. Other parts of the response provide a laundry list of
`
`documents and deposition testimony, but none is explained or tied in any comprehensible way to a
`
`“reasonable royalty” to which Boeing and Activision would have agreed to when infringement
`
`began. The response does not constitute a damages theory supported by reasonable theories or
`
`admissible evidence.
`
`In defending its abandonment of the 15.5% royalty before the Special Master, Acceleration
`
`admitted that the 15.5% rate was unsupported by its experts:
`
`Acceleration Bay disclosed that the 15.5% rate was only one theory of damages, and
`that Acceleration Bay would also seek “a reasonable royalty based on the number of
`unique users” and that its expert would determine the appropriate rate. Def. Ex. 5
`(6/2/17 Rog. Resp.) at 6. Dr. Meyer’s $2.10 per user royalty is an expert opinion
`applying the Georgia-Pacific analysis and taking into account the opinions of a
`technical expert. That $2.10 amount is not a fact that Acceleration Bay could have
`disclosed during fact discovery because the $2.10 rate is the product of expert
`analysis from multiple experts, and is appropriately explained and provided in their
`expert reports, rather than a number plucked from a particular document.
`
`(Ex. 5, Opp. to Motion to Strike at 14) (emphasis added). In that same brief, Acceleration
`
`acknowledged that “the final calculation of damages is properly the subject of expert opinion.” (Id.
`
`at 20 (citing Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., No. 09-MD-
`
`2118-SLR, D.I. 453 at 2-3) (emphasis in original)). Acceleration should not be permitted to revive
`
`this abandoned “fact based” damages theory after it deliberately abandoned it in expert discovery
`
`and defended that abandonment to the Special Master.
`
`Acceleration argues the Pennypack factors, but they do not apply here. Given Acceleration’s
`
`abandonment and lack of admissible evidence for these theories, the Court has inherent authority to
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 49215
`
`“prevent [Acceleration] from presenting evidence of” them. ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`
`700 F.3d 509, 523 (Fed. Cir. 2012).4 Moreover, Acceleration’s maneuvers were plainly “deliberate.”
`
`Op. Br. at 6. Allowing Acceleration to resurrect these unsupported and inadmissible theories would
`
`require delay of trial for additional discovery, so that Activision can respond to a theory not
`
`disclosed during expert discovery. Op. Br. at 8. Acceleration’s failure to advance these theories in
`
`its expert reports—as it promised—“deprived Activision of any reasonable opportunity to challenge
`
`their admissibility in the traditional manner,” and has further prejudiced Activision by subjecting it
`
`damages claims that skyrocketed after the Court dismissed 9 of 16 claims and excluded
`
`Acceleration’s sole expert damages theory. Op. Br. at 8. This case is now two weeks from trial and
`
`Acceleration still has not disclosed the basis for or calculation of any admissible damages case.
`
`Activision respectfully requests that Acceleration be precluded from presenting at trial the
`
`15.5% royalty rate, the royalty bases associated with that rate, and any other reasonable royalty or
`
`damages theory not adequately disclosed in its expert reports.
`
`
`4 The Federal Circuit observed: “Trial management is particularly subject to the wide latitude of the
`district court. Here, the district court was reasonably concerned that any last-minute addition to the
`record would disrupt the proceedings and cause unacceptable delay. The district court was also
`concerned that by changing the damage calculation methodology on the eve of trial, ePlus would
`expose Lawson to an unjustified risk of prejudice. These concerns provided the district court with
`sufficient basis to preclude ePlus from presenting any evidence of damages at trial.” ePlus, Inc.,
`700 F.3d at 523.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 605 Filed 10/23/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 49216
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Louis L. Campbell
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`Sean H. Suber
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`B. Trent Webb
`Aaron E. Hankel
`Jordan T. Bergsten
`Maxwell C. McGraw
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`
`October 11, 2018
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`__________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Anup K. Misra
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Joseph C. Masullo
`Paul N. Harold
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`
`11
`
`