Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 7365
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., A2Z
`DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. d/b/a LAB126,
`RAWLES LLC, AMZN MOBILE LLC, AMZN
`MOBILE 2 LLC, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.
`f/k/a AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC.,
`and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE UNRELIABLE
`TESTIMONY OF VB ASSETS’ DAMAGES EXPERT BRETT REED
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC, Amazon
`Web Services, Inc., A2Z Development Center,
`Inc. d/b/a Lab126, Rawles, LLC, AMZN
`Mobile LLC, AMZN Mobile 2 LLC,
`Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a Amazon
`Fulfillment Services, Inc., and Amazon.com
`Services LLC
`
`Of counsel:
`
`J. David Hadden, CSB No. 176148
`Saina S. Shamilov, CSB No. 215636
`Ravi R. Ranganath, CSB No. 272981
`Vigen Salmastlian, CSB No. 276846
`Allen Wang, CBS No. 278953
`Johnson Kuncheria, CSB No. 335765
`Min Wu, CSB No. 307512
`Jeffrey A. Ware, CSB No. 271603
`Rebecca A.E. Fewkes, CSB No. 209168
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Dated: February 3, 2023
`
`{01879377;v1 }
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 7366
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Patents and Accused Technology ......................................................2
`
`Mr. Reed’s Opening Damages Report .....................................................................3
`
`Mr. Reed’s Reply Damages Report .........................................................................6
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Mr. Reed’s damages models do not value the alleged contribution of the
`patented “technology.” .............................................................................................8
`
` math error and change his
`That Mr. Reed can make a
`assumptions to arrive at the same result shows that his analysis is
`arbitrary, flawed, and unreliable. ...........................................................................10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01879377;v1 }
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 7367
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC,
`IPR2020-01346, 2022 WL 320531 (PTAB Feb. 1, 2022) .........................................................1
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .........................................................................................................2, 7, 10
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................2, 8, 9
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...................................................................................................................7
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................7
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ................................................................................................................................8
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...................................................................................................................2, 7, 10
`
`
`
`
`{01879377;v1 }
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 7368
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 16 PagelD #: 7368
`
`TABLEOF EXHIBITS!
`
`No.
`1
`
`Exhibit
`Opening Expert Report of Brett L. Reed, served on August 15, 2022 (“Reed Op.
`
`Reoiy Expert Report of Brett L. Reed, served on October 14, 2022 (“Reed Reply
`Doppuition transcript of Brett L. Reed, taken on December 12, 2022 (“Reed Dep.
`Rebuttal Expert Report ofDr. Michael T. Johnson, served on September 22, 2022
`
`“Johnson Reb. Rep.”
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D., served on September 22, 2022
`
`
`“Ugone Reb. Rep.”
`
`Opening Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D., served on August 15, 2022
`(“Polish Opening Report’’)
`
`
`AMZ VB 00342253— AMZ VB 00342259)
`
`J)
`ha
`TDRD 4.2vB00490726
`
`AMZ VB 0000490760
`
`19, 2022 (“Mehta Dep. Tr.”
`9
`Deposition transcript of Rajiv Mehta, taken on May
`
`10 June 3, 2022 email from I. Liston to V. Salmastlian.
`
`
`
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`-
`
`
`
`! Exhibits are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Jeffrey A. Ware
`
`{01879377:v1 }
`
`lll
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 7369
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiff VB Assets, LLC (“VB Assets”) filed this patent infringement action against
`
`Defendants2 on July 29, 2019. (D.I. 1.) VB Assets amended its complaint on October 9, 2019. (D.I.
`
`22.) It originally asserted six patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found one patent invalid,
`
`which VB Assets then withdrew.3 Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC, IPR2020-01346, 2022 WL
`
`320531, at *16 (PTAB Feb. 1, 2022). VB Assets now alleges literal infringement of 41 claims across
`
`five patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681 (the “’681 patent”), 7,818,176 (the “’176 patent”),
`
`8,886,536 (the “’536 patent”), 9,269,097 (the “’097 patent”), and 9,626,703 (the “’703 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “asserted patents”). No pretrial conference or trial date has been set. (D.I. 172;
`
`D.I. 179.)
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`VB Assets seeks reasonable royalty damages of
`
` for purported infringement
`
`of the asserted patents, each of which relates to responding to voice requests. This demand relies
`
`on the opinion of damages expert Brett Reed, who applies a “cost savings” approach. Mr. Reed
`
`assumes that Amazon 1) would lose Alexa users if unable to use the claimed inventions, 2) could
`
`recover these customers only by selling more of the accused Alexa-enabled devices at a loss, and
`
`3) that this “cost” reflects the value of the claimed inventions. The model Mr. Reed initially
`
`devised to determine this cost included a math error so egregious that it overstated the claimed
`
`damages by
`
`. When Amazon’s expert called out this error, Mr. Reed
`
`
`2 Defendants are Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com LLC; Amazon Web Services, Inc.; A2Z
`Development Center, Inc. d/b/a Lab126; Rawles LLC; AMZN Mobile LLC; AMZN Mobile 2
`LLC; Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.; and Amazon Digital
`Services LLC (collectively “Amazon”).
`3 VB Assets withdrew U.S. Patent No. 9,015,049 on June 3, 2022. (Declaration of Jeffrey A.
`Ware in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Exclude The Unreliable Testimony of VB Assets’
`Damages Expert Brett Reed, Ex. 9, June 3, 2022 email from I. Liston to V. Salmastlian.)
`
`{01879377;v1 }
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 7370
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 16 PagelD #: 7370
`
`acknowledgedit, but refused to simply correct it.
`
`Instead, he concocted a different model, with
`
`new and unsupportable assumptions, that measures benefits Amazon derived fromP|
`ee
`eee
`ee. Put simply,P| has no conceivable connection to the asserted
`
`patents: VB Assets alleges that Amazon infringed the asserted patents years before the launch of
`
`a. andi encouraged customers to usiii that are not accused
`of infringement.
`In improperly calculating damages based on a. Mr. Reed violates
`
`fundamental Federal Circuit law that patent damages mustreflect “the value attributable to the
`
`infringing features of the product, and no more.” Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d
`
`1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Not only does Mr. Reed’s new modelviolate Federal Circuit law by valuing contributions
`
`unrelated to the asserted patents, it also magically results in the same inflated damages figure Mr.
`
`Reedcalculated in his original report based on an admitted math error. That Mr. Reed can change
`
`his methodology and arrive at the same desired outcome initially predicated on a math error
`
`underscores that his assumptions and analysis are arbitrary, flawed and unreliable—not “the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods” as Fed. R. Evid. 702 requires. The Court should
`
`exercise its gatekeeping responsibility under Daubert and exclude Mr. Reed’s testimony.
`
`fil.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Patents and Accused Technology
`
`VB Assets asserts claims of five patents, across three patent families, each generally
`
`relating to systems and methods for responding to a voice utterance, including by offering a voice
`
`advertisementor identifying a product for purchase. It accuses Amazon’s Alexa, including certain
`
`Alexa Shopping features, and Amazon’s Alexa-enabled devices (i.e., Echo, Fire TV, and Fire
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7371
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 7 of 16 PagelD #: 7371
`
`Tablet devices) of infringing these patents.
`
`(Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep. at 36-37.) VB Assets alleges
`
`that the Alexa voiceservice infringes the ’681 patent, whichrelates to the use of shared knowledge
`
`from past and present conversations to recognize and respondto voice utterances. (Ex. 4, Johnson
`
`Reb. Rep., §§ 84-92, 95.) It alleges that Alexa Shopping infringes the ’176, 536, and ’097 patents
`
`(collectively, “Voice Ad patents”), which generally relate to targeted advertising based on a voice
`
`utterance, and the ’703 patent, which generally relates to identifying and completing a purchase of
`
`a productin responseto a voice utterance. (/d. F§ 95, 139-44.)
`
`B.
`
`Mr. Reed’s Opening DamagesReport
`
`Mr. Reed submitted his opening damages report on August 15, 2022.
`
`(Ex. 1, Reed. Op.
`
`Rep.) In this report, Mr. Reed estimates reasonably royalty damages ofPo from
`
`2015 to 2023.
`
`(id. at 5, 177, Tab 8.) Mr. Reed arrives at this estimate using a so-called “cost
`
`savings” approach, attempting to estimate the savings Amazon enjoysas a result of the purported
`
`use of the claimed inventions.
`
`(/d. at 112.) In Mr. Reed’s view,the asserted patents improve the
`
`customer experience, and Amazon benefitsby
`
`SE 2211)
`
`Mr. Reed begins his analysis by extrapolating from the opinion of VB Assets’ technical
`
`expert, Dr. Polish, that Amazon’s purported use of the ’681 patent enables Alexa to reduceall
`
`Alexa dialogs by an average ofBums, and that the Voice Ad and ’703 patents enable Alexa
`Shopping to reduce interactions by another[ij turns on average.
`(Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep. at 116
`
`4 Though Amazon does not seek exclusion on this basis, Mr. Reed’s assumption that Amazon
`would preflle
`
`one of several improper assumptionsthat renders his analysis unreliable. (Ex. 5, Ugone Reb. Rep.,
`§ 248.)
`> The first “turn” in an Alexa dialogis the user’s initial request, the second “turn”is the user’s
`subsequent response to Alexa’s response, and so forth. (Ex. 4, Johnson Reb. Rep., § 79.)
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 7372
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 8 of 16 PagelD #: 7372
`
`n.323, 139). Mr. Reed purports to measure the cost to Amazon of the extra turns that Dr. Polish
`
`claims would be required without the asserted patents.
`
`(Jd. at 160-77.)®
`
`Mr. Reedrelies on 0ie that states that, at
`the beginning of2018, Alexa Shopping and Alexa interactions differed by an average offftuns:
`
`also Ex. 7 (AMZ_VB_00342253 at 254BE From there, Mr. Reed
`calculates that Alexa Shopping had_ growth rate than Alexa
`
`overall between Q1 2017 and Q1 2018. (Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep.at 139, Tab-16). He ascribes both
`
`Alexa Shopping’sPo and Alexa’s correspondingpo to this purported
`Bi-un difference:
`
`
`
`(Id. at 139-40 (emphasis added); see also id. at Tab 16). Mr. Reed usesthis|| difference in
`
`growth rates from 2017 to 2018 as a proxy for the contribution of the asserted patents, despite
`
`admitting in deposition that during this comparison period Alexa and Alexa Shopping both offered
`
`the features that VB Assets accuses of infringing the patents. (Ex. 3, Reed Dep. Tr. 85:3-86:2.)
`
`Mr, Reed contends atoo
`the eum difference, and in turn, thefii loweruser growth, which heattributes to the patents.
`
`© Mr. Reed extrapolates his average 1.5-turn increase assumption for a// Alexa and Alexa
`Shopping dialogs based on Dr. Polish’s opinion that Amazon’s identified non-infringing
`alternatives would result in an increase of 1-2 turns limited to specifically accused functions. (See
`Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep. at 116 n.323; Ex. 6, Polish Op. Rep. §§ 758-72.)
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 7373
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 9 of 16 PagelD #: 7373
`
`(Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep.at 139). But he performs no analysis to connect Alexa Shopping’s purported
`
`Po to the asserted patentsor theBFounber ofturns. Mr. Reed also conveniently
`ignores that people use Alexa and Alexa Shopping differently, and those differences
`BE—contribute to the difference in turn rates. For example, unlike Alexa Shopping
`
`interactions, Alexa interactions typically involve single commands or questions, like “what’s the
`
`weather,” “what time is it,” “set a timer for 10 minutes,” “what is the capital of Delaware,” or
`
`“play the Beatles.” (See Ex. 5, Ugone Reb. Rep. at § 20.c.i1i.) By contrast, Alexa Shopping seeks
`
`to engage the user in a multistep process that includes searching, selecting, and purchasing items
`
`on the Amazon.com retailsite.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Reed useshis calculatedfl growth rate reduction foriii as
`
`the starting point for his damages model for a// of the asserted patents—including his damages
`
`estimates for the 681 patent, which VB Assets asserts against all Alexa use, and for the Voice Ad
`
`and ’703 patents, which VB Assets asserts against features ofAlexa Shopping. Forthe 681 patent,
`
`Mr. Reedstarts with the|| loweriii growthrate, “apportions” Za ofthat loss to
`the “reduced turns” enabled bythe patent, and arrives a|| (Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep. at 163). Mr.
`Reed then multipliesen: average contribution profit loss friii
`Pe during the damagesperiod. (/d. at 163-64.) Mr. Reed then multiplies
`the resulting|| per-unit royalty by his royalty base—the annualincreasein active U.S. Alexa
`
`users from 2015 to 2023.
`
`(Ud. at 165, Tab 10.) Using this methodology, Mr. Reed estimates a
`
`royalty ofBEnillion over this period, before applying an annualP| royalty cap,
`resulting in claimed damages ofa. (d.) For the Voice Ad and ’703 patents, Mr.
`Reed calculates a per-unit royalty rate ofi by multiplying the same “apportioned”ae
`by a purported cost savings of|| per Alexa Shopping customer. (/d. at 164.) Mr. Reedarrives
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 7374
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 10 of 16 PagelD #: 7374
`
`at the a cost savings by assuming that, to acquire a new Alexa Shopping customer, Amazon
`would have to offer promotional benefits, consisting ofPe
`|| (d. at 173 n.415.) Mr. Reed multiplies this rate by his royalty base, the annual growth of
`Alexa Shopping purchasers to arrive atPo royalty for the Voice Ads patent family
`(2016-23) andaf royalty for the °703 patent.
`(Jd. at 178-79, Tabs 11 & 12.)
`
`Cc.
`
`Mr. Reed’s Reply Damages Report
`
`In his reply report, Mr. Reed concedes that the BMower active user growth rate he
`
`calculated in his opening report, and on whichhis entire analysis depends, reflected an egregious
`
`“math error,” and, calculated correctly, this figure would be only 7. (Ex. 2, Reed Reply Rep.
`
`at 11-12, 18, Tab 16-R.) Indeed, leaving all other assumptions and inputs to his model unchanged,
`
`correcting this math error reduces Mr. Reed’s estimated damages by 73oY
`x. 5. U200e Rb
`
`Rep. §§ 232-34, 268 b., e.. 269.) Mr. Reed, however, refused to simply correct his admitted error,
`
`and intends to present his inflated royalty at trial.
`
`(Ex. 2, Reed Reply Rep.at 18-
`
`21; Ex. 3, Reed Dep. Tr. 56:9-58:5). To do so, Mr. Reed concocts new assumptions and a new
`
`methodology.
`
`To get back to thefii lower growthrate that drives all ofhis damage estimates, Mr. Reed
`abandonsactual data and instead makes up his own. He increases the user growth rate of||
`a by applying an “expected growth” multiplier of|| per year, and then comparesthis
`adjusted growth rate “benchmark”to the unadjusted growth rate ofa. which, not
`
`coincidentally, results in the same|| difference he calculated before. (Compare Ex. 2, Reed
`
`Reply Rep. at Tab 16-R with Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep. at Tab 16; see also Ex. 2, Reed Reply Rep.at
`
`19-21.) Mr. Reedjustifies this new assumption by arguing that should have grown by
`|| between 2017 and 2018, becausePs grew at that rate between 2019 and
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 7375
`
`
`
`2021, a period after the launch of the so-called
`
`. (Ex. 2, Reed Reply Rep. at
`
`20.)
`
`Amazon launched the
`
` in late-2018 to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMZ_VB_00342253 at 254).)
`
`Ex. 7 AMZ_VB_00342253 at 254).)
`
`.” (Ex. 1, Reed Op. Rep. at 53 n.169 (quoting Ex. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Id. at 58 n.180 (quoting
`
`.7 (Ex. 8 (Alexa Shopping
`
` (AMZ_VB_00490726 at 737).) Mr. Reed inputs that growth due to
`
` into his calculation of the growth rate differential to get to the
`
` starting point in
`
`his original model, and in turn the damages estimate in his opening report. (Ex. 2, Reed Reply
`
`Rep. at 20; Tab 16-R.)
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must “be the product of reliable
`
`principles and methods applied to sufficient facts or data.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This standard places a special
`
`obligation upon the court to act as a “gatekeeper” and ensure that expert testimony “is not only
`
`relevant, but reliable.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (quoting Daubert
`
`
`7 Alexa Shopping refers to a wide range of shopping features, many of which do not require
`any Alexa interaction. (Ex. 8, Mehta Dep. Tr. at 37:5-38:7 (describing Alexa Shopping features
`that do not require a voice utterance).)
`
`{01879377;v1 }
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 7376
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 12 of 16 PagelD #: 7376
`
`v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993)). Mr. Reed’s damages opinions are both
`
`urelevant and unreliable, and thus inadmissible.
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Reed’s damages models do not value the alleged contribution of the
`patented “technology.”
`
`“{W]here multi-component products are involved, the governingrule is that the ultimate
`
`combination of royalty base and royalty rate must reflect the value attributable to the infringing
`
`Jeatures of the product, and no more.” Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1226 (emphasis added). “As a
`
`substantive matter, it is the ‘value ofwhat was taken’ that measures a ‘reasonable royalty’ under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284.” Td. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “What is taken from the ownerof a
`
`utility patent (for purposes of assessing damagesunder§ 284) is on/y the patented technology, and
`
`so the value to be measuredis only the value ofthe infringingfeatures ofan accusedproduct.” Id.
`
`(citation omitted) (emphasis added). Mr. Reed’s analysis violates this fundamental tenet ofFederal
`
`Circuit damageslaw, and doesnotreflect the contribution of the asserted patents.
`
`First, the | reduced growth rate that Mr. Reed estimates in his opening report has
`nothing to do with the asserted patents. Mr. Reed arrives at the|| figure by calculating the
`
`difference in actual user growth rates between Alexa overall and Alexa Shopping between 2017
`
`and 2018, which he attributes to the purported -tun difference between Alexa and Alexa
`Shopping. Thisfil calculated difference reflects an admitted math error that inflates his claimed
`damage byee. But, just as importantly, over the 2017-2018 time frame, both
`
`Alexa and Alexa shopping offered the very features that VB Assets accuses of infringement. (Ex.
`
`3, Reed Dep. Tr. 85:3-86:2.) Thus, these accused features, which VB Assets claims the asserted
`
`patents enable, could not have caused Alexa’:iii compared to Alexa Shopping or
`Alexa Shopping’sPo growth compared to Alexa’$jcrowth rate from Q1 2017 to
`
`Q1 2018. Reed is not comparing one with the patented benefit to the other without.
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 7377
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 13 of 16 PagelD #: 7377
`
`Second, the new model in Mr. Reed’s reply report values a. not the purported
`
`contribution of the asserted patents. See Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1226.
`
`Indeed,in the reply report,
`
`Mr. Reedtries to resurrect his|| growth difference for 2017-18 by arguing that Alexa users
`should have grown byii the average annual user growth ofAlexa Shopping from 2019 to 2021
`after the launch of Amazon’s a. ButP| has nothing to do with the asserted
`
`AMZ_VB_00342253 at 254): id. at 58 n.180 (quoting Ex. 7 AMZVB_00342253 at 254).) By
`
`contrast, the asserted patents are each directed to voice interactions.
`
`(See D.I. 22, §§ 56, 76, 93-
`
`99.) In fact drove a significant portion ofthe Alexa Shopping user growth
`from 2019 to 2021 that Reed injects back into the 2017-18 calculation as “expected growth.”||
`eS :
`GE (AMZ_VB_00490726 at 737).) Mr. Reed’sattribution 0f
`Pe to the asserted voice patents violates well-
`
`established Federal Circuit law and is inadmissible. Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1226.
`
`Third, the Bim reduction Mr. Reed relies on as a proxy for the contribution of the
`asserted patents makes no sense. Indeed, evenif it were true tha increased the
`numberof turns for A/exa Shopping by 1.5 turns or thati improvedthe Alexa Shopping
`
`customer experience by reducing that same numberof turns, Mr. Reed does not explain why these
`
`same assumptions should apply to use of non-shopping Alexa features allegedly implicated by the
`
`°681 patent. Mr. Reed ignores that typical Alexa interactions involve one-shot requests that do not
`
`require any addedturnslike “what’s the weather” or “call Mom,” while Alexa Shopping seeks to
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 7378
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 14 of 16 PagelD #: 7378
`
`interact with users over multiple steps from initial product search to final purchase. Alexa
`
`Shopping results in extended, multi-turn dialogs by design. Thus, Mr. Reed’s reliance on a
`P| iim purported improvements to Alexa Shopping, to calculate damages for
`
`Alexais not “the product of reliable principles and methods.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 (c). The Court
`
`should exclude Reed’ from proffering his 681 patent royalty on that groundalso.
`
`B.
`
`That Mr. Reed can make een dollar math error and changehis
`
`showsthathis analysis is arbitrary,
`
`assumptionsto arrive at the same result
`flawed, and unreliable.
`
`Mr. Reed’s brazen attempt to recapture the damageslost due to his “math error” through a
`
`new methodology and manufactured assumptions also renders his opinion unreliable and
`
`inadmissible. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597. Mr. Reedtestified that, aside from his|| lower user
`growth input—whichshould be BBafier correction of his math error—all other assumptions in
`
`his opening report were correct. (Ex. 3, Reed Dep. Tr. 71:19-73:12; Ex. 2, Reed Reply Rep.at 13-
`
`18 (accepting “math error” but denying remaining critiques by Amazon’s damages expert)). But
`
`determined to arrive at his desired outecome—an inflated damage estimate ofeM.
`
`Reed simply conjured up new assumptions to arrive at the same number. Mr. Reed replaced actual
`
`growth rates for Alexa with an expected growth rate a. which reflects growth due to
`a. not any contribution of the patents. This results-based methodology showsthat his
`
`analysis, and the assumptions that underly it, are flawed, arbitrary, and unreliable—not “the
`
`productof reliable principles and methods.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(c); see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at
`
`597. The Court should exclude Mr. Reed’s testimony on this groundalso.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Forall these reasons, Amazon requests an order excluding the expert testimony of Mr.
`
`Reed becausehefails to meet the threshold admissibility standard under Federal Rule of Evidence
`
`702 and Daubert.
`
`{01879377:v1}
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 7379
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of counsel:
`
`J. David Hadden, CSB No. 176148
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov, CSB No. 215636
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ravi R. Ranganath, CSB No. 272981
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`Vigen Salmastlian, CSB No. 276846
`vsalmastlian@fenwick.com
`Allen Wang, CBS No. 278953
`awang@fenwick.com
`Johnson Kuncheria, CSB No. 335765
`jkuncheria@fenwick.com
`Min Wu, CSB No. 307512
`min.wu@fenwick.com
`Jeffrey A. Ware, CSB No. 271603
`jware@fenwick.com
`Rebecca A.E. Fewkes, CSB No. 209168
`rfewkes@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Dated: February 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Andrew C. Mayo
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC, Amazon
`Web Services, Inc., A2Z Development Center,
`Inc. d/b/a Lab126, Rawles, LLC, AMZN
`Mobile LLC, AMZN Mobile 2 LLC,
`Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a Amazon
`Fulfillment Services, Inc., and Amazon.com
`Services LLC
`
`{01879377;v1 }
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 192 Filed 02/10/23 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 7380
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of February, 2023, the attached OPENING BRIEF IN
`
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY OF VB
`
`ASSETS’ DAMAGES EXPERT BRETT REED was served upon the below-named counsel of
`
`record at the address and in the manner indicated:
`
`
`
`Ian R. Liston, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`Edward G. Poplawski, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`
`
`
`James C. Yoon, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
` /s/ Andrew C. Mayo
`
`Andrew C. Mayo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01879377;v1 }
`
`
`
`