Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.14997 Filed 06/20/24 Page 1 of 50
`
`REDACTED
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S BRIEF IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE OR
`EXCLUDE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE
`TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.14998 Filed 06/20/24 Page 2 of 50
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE CERTAIN
`PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Neo”), through their counsel,
`
`
`
`respectfully moves this Court to:
`
`1) Strike portions of the opening expert reports of Dr. Bims, Dr. Wells, and Dr.
`
`Buehrer relating to Defendants’ improper use of the unelected 802.16e,
`
`802.11a, and Koo prior art references, as identified in the accompanying brief;
`
`2) Exclude Defendants’ experts from (1) testifying as to the substance of the
`
`Neo–Avanci negotiations, and (2) offering any damages opinions to the extent
`
`that they rely upon the Neo–Avanci negotiations, as described in the
`
`accompanying brief;
`
`3) Exclude portions of the Mayo Report for failing to include a complete
`
`statement and identification of source code that Dr. Mayo had relied on to
`
`formulate his opinions, as identified in the accompanying brief;
`
`4) Strike Appendix A to the Errata to Expert Report of Dr. Andrew J. Mayo and
`
`any related testimony, as described in the accompanying brief;
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.14999 Filed 06/20/24 Page 3 of 50
`
`5) Exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert witnesses on the defenses of
`
`inequitable conduct and unclean hands, as described in the accompanying
`
`brief.
`
`In support of its motion, Neo relies upon the authorities and arguments set
`
`forth in the accompanying brief and attached exhibits.
`
`Counsel for Neo conferred with counsel for Defendants on June 14th, 2024.
`
`Counsel explained the basis for this motion but was unable to obtain concurrence on
`
`the relief sought.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15000 Filed 06/20/24 Page 4 of 50
`
`DATED: June 20, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`James F. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24129800
`Email: jsmith@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone:
`(214) 888-4848
`Facsimile:
`(214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`Email: jcquadrozzi@varnumlaw.com
`VARNUM LLP
`480 Pierce Street, Suite 300
`Birmingham, Michigan 48009
`Telephone:
`(248) 567-7800
`Facsimile:
`(214) 567-7423
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15001 Filed 06/20/24 Page 5 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY
`OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS
`
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15002 Filed 06/20/24 Page 6 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS OF
`DRS. BIMS, WELLS, AND BUEHRER. ........................................................ 1
`A. The Unelected References Are Relied on for Invalidity. ........................ 3
`B. Defendants Expert Reports Do Not Use 802.16e, Koo, or 802.11a
`to Provide the State of the Art. ................................................................ 6
`C. Permitting the Use of 802.16e, 802.11a, and Koo Will Negate the
`Court’s Narrowing Order and Confuse the Jury. ..................................... 8
`D. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 9
`II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY RELYING ON
`NEO–AVANCI NEGOTIATIONS .................................................................. 9
`A. Factual Background ...............................................................................10
`B. Legal Standards ......................................................................................13
`C. The Neo–Avanci negotiations are an “attempt[] to compromise”
`Neo’s infringement claims under Rule 408 and evidence regarding
`them is therefore inadmissible. ..............................................................14
`D. Defendants’ experts’ opinions that rely on the Neo–Avanci
`negotiations should be excluded under Rule 403 because their
`probative value is outweighed by substantial prejudice to Neo. ...........17
`E. Conclusion .............................................................................................19
`III. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DR. MAYO’S SOURCE CODE
`REPORT AND BELATED ERRATA SHEET ..............................................19
`A. The Mayo Report Violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by
`Failing to Identify the Facts and Data Relied Upon by Dr. Mayo. .......20
`1. Dr. Mayo’s report fails to provide a complete statement
`identifying the facts and data on which he relied. .........................20
`2. Neither Dr. Mayo nor the Mayo Report otherwise provides
`enough information to allow for an identification of the code
`relied on by Dr. Mayo in reaching his opinions.............................22
`B. Dr. Mayo’s Unduly Late Errata Sheet Should Be Stricken. ..................24
`1. Factor 1: Surprise to the other party...............................................25
`2. Factor 2: Ability to cure the surprise .............................................25
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15003 Filed 06/20/24 Page 7 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`3. Factor 3: Disruption to trial ............................................................27
`4. Factor 4: Importance of the late evidence ......................................27
`5. Factor 5: Explanation for the failure to disclose ............................28
`C. Conclusion .............................................................................................29
`IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS’ TECHNICAL EXPERTS’
`IMPROPER OPINIONS ON UNENFORCEABILITY .................................30
`A. Defendants’ Technical Experts Improperly Base Their Opinions
`on Inadmissible Hearsay From the Adaptix Litigation. .........................30
`B. Defendants’ Experts Improperly Use Defendants’ Stricken
`Invalidity Theories as a Basis for Their Opinions on Materiality. ........33
`C. Defendants’ Experts’ Opinions are Unreliable and Based on Facts
`Not in Evidence and the Inventors’ State of Mind. ...............................33
`D. Conclusion .............................................................................................35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15004 Filed 06/20/24 Page 8 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Adkins v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LP
` 672 F.Supp.3d 483 (S.D. Ohio 2023) ...................................................................14
`
`Am. Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers v. Showtime/The Movie
`Channel, Inc.
` 912 F.2d 563 (2d Cir. 1990) .................................................................................14
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.
` No. 12-cv-00630, 2014 WL 794328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) ..........................18
`
`Better Mouse Co. v. SteelSeries ApS
` No. 2:14-cv-198, 2016 WL 3611560 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) .............................. 8
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
` No. 2:13-cv-1112, 2015 WL 4944514 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2015) ........................ 8
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.
` 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .............................................................................................14
`
`Dow Corning Corp. v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc.
` No. 09-10429, 2011 WL 2490962 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2011) ...........................34
`
`Emcore Corp. v. Optium Corp.
` No. CIV. A. 7-326, 2009 WL 3381800 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2009) ........................ 6
`
`Engebretsen v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp.
` 21 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................31
`
`EQT Prod. Co. v. Magnum Hunter Prod., Inc.
` 768 F. App’x 459 (6th Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 26, 27
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.
` No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016) ............. 6
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc.
` No. 10-cv-03972, 2012 WL 5835741 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012) .......................18
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15005 Filed 06/20/24 Page 9 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Howe v. City of Akron
` 801 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015) ................................................................... 24, 25, 26
`
`In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litig.
` 2009 WL 4800702 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2009) .........................................................35
`
`Isely v. Capuchin Prov.
` 877 F. Supp. 1055 (E.D. Mich. 1995) ..................................................................31
`
`Killion v. KeHE Distributors, LLC
` 761 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................31
`
`Life Techs. Corp. v. Biosearch Techs., Inc.
` No. C 12-00852 WHA, 2012 WL 4097740 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012) ................ 6
`
`McLean v. 988011 Ontario, Ltd.
` 224 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................34
`
`Metaswitch Networks Ltd. v. Genband US LLC
` No. 2:14-CV-744-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3618831 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2016) ......... 3
`
`Navarro v. Procter & Gamble Co.
` No. 1:17-cv-00406, 2021 WL 868586 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2021) ........................14
`
`Numatics, Inc. v. Balluff, Inc.
` 66 F. Supp. 3d 934 (E.D. Mich. 2014) .................................................................35
`
`Pactiv Corp. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc.
` No. 10 C 461, 2013 WL 2384249 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2013) .................................. 5
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell Inc.
` No. 02-cv-00148, 2003 WL 22387038 (D. Del. Oct. 7, 2003) ............................19
`
`PureWick Corp. v. Sage Prods., LLC
` No. 19-1508, 2021 WL 2593338 (D. Del. June 24, 2021) ...................................35
`
`Putnam v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc.
` No. 1:05-cv-02011, 2007 WL 4794115 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 29, 2007) ......................13
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15006 Filed 06/20/24 Page 10 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co.
` 324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 2
`
`RJ Control Consultants, Inc. v. Multiject, LLC
` 100 F.4th 659 (6th Cir. 2024) ...............................................................................27
`
`Roberts ex rel. Johnson v. Galen of Va., Inc.
` 325 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................20
`
`U.S. v. Tipton
` 269 Fed. Appx. 551 (6th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................32
`
`United States v. Iwas
` No. 18-20769, 2023 WL 6702114 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2023) ...........................35
`
`Statutes
`
`35 USC § 102 ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .....................................................................................................24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).................................................................................................24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) .............................................................................. passim
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).................................................................................................24
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ........................................................................................ 14, 17, 19
`Fed. R. Evid. 408 .................................................................................. 13, 15, 17, 18
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ........................................................................................ 14, 31, 32
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 .....................................................................................................31
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15007 Filed 06/20/24 Page 11 of 50
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15008 Filed 06/20/24 Page 12 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`(a later version published in 2006 amending 802.16a) and Koo (a September 2004
`
`patent publication) to supply that missing element. In addition, Dr. Bims specifically
`
`uses
`
`
`
`
`
` See Ex. B at ¶¶ 181–182.
`
`There is no dispute that these references were not elected by Defendants
`
`pursuant to the Court’s narrowing order, and thus cannot be used by Defendants to
`
`show invalidity. Ex. E at 114:16–115:4 (Bims Deposition Transcript); Ex. D at
`
`151:9–152:1; Ex. F at 194:1–10 (Buehrer Deposition Transcript). Indeed,
`
`Defendants had never, prior to their expert reports, provided invalidity charts
`
`combining 802.16a with 802.16e or Koo, nor 802.11a with Harel. Defendants’ most
`
`recent invalidity contentions include a cursory cite to 802.16e for the ’908 Patent
`
`only with no analysis, while the ’302 Patent chart for Harel not only contains no
`
`citation to 802.11a, but does not even identify the portions of Harel on which Dr.
`
`Bims now relies for his discussion of 802.11a. Making matters worse, 802.16e and
`
`Koo do not even qualify as prior art to the relevant Asserted Patents, making their
`
`use in combination with 802.16a even more improper. See Riverwood Int’l Corp. v.
`
`R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining “prior art” used
`
`to show obviousness must meet the requirements of § 102.). Because Defendants
`
`have not elected these references (and, for 802.16e and Koo, could not have done so
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15009 Filed 06/20/24 Page 13 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`since they are not even prior art to the relevant Asserted Patents), the Court should
`
`exclude any testimony relying on these references in Defendants’ invalidity case.2
`
`A. The Unelected References Are Relied on for Invalidity.
`Though Defendants will contend otherwise, the Opening Expert Reports do
`
`rely on the Unelected References for invalidity—to supply the otherwise missing
`
`limitations of “mobile station/device” and “request for a probing signal.”
`
`Dr. Bims argues that
`
`
`
`and 802.16e in his invalidity analysis of the preamble of claim 23 of the ’302 Patent.
`
` For example, Dr. Bims introduces Koo
`
`Ex. B at ¶ 258.
`
`. To reach this conclusion,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 To be clear, Neo believes any discussion or introduction of unelected art in the
`experts’ testimony at trial—even if purportedly not for invalidity—should be
`precluded because of the limited probative value and risk of juror confusion, e.g.,
`under Rules 402 and 403. However, because that relates to the presentation of
`evidence at each trial in this MDL rather than the common bases for these experts’
`validity opinions, Neo focuses this motion solely on Defendants’ use of unelected
`art to show invalidity. Neo reserves the right to raise other evidentiary challenges to
`the presentation of unelected art in the individual district courts, including, for
`example, in motion in limine practice as necessary. See, e.g., Metaswitch Networks
`Ltd. v. Genband US LLC, No. 2:14-CV-744-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3618831, at *6
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2016) (granting motion in limine and stating “neither party may
`rely on unelected prior art references, including standards”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15010 Filed 06/20/24 Page 14 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`.4 Dr. Bims performs
`
`the same analysis for the preamble of claim 1 of the ’908 Patent. Id. at ¶ 458.
`
`The Wells Report, too, relies on an early draft of 802.16e, which it styles as
`
` and provides details of early efforts on
`
`802.16e to conclude that a
`
`
`
` for the
`
`preamble of the claims for the ’450 and ’941 patents. Ex. A at ¶¶ 224–229, 231, 444.
`
`The Buehrer Report similarly provides an analysis of 802.16e, admitting
`
`” Ex. C at ¶¶ 128–129. Dr. Buehrer relies
`
` He argues
`
` Id. at ¶¶ 128–130, 160, 548, 711, 713–714, 987.
`
`Finally, Dr. Bims specifically uses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` purports to describe 802.16e, but expressly states that “there is no detailed
`
`specification yet for the IEEE 802.16e communication system.” Ex. BB (Koo) at
`[0008].
`4 Dr. Buehrer performs a similar analysis of Koo and 802.16e to reach a similar
`conclusion. Ex. C at ¶ 713.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15011 Filed 06/20/24 Page 15 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
` Ex. B at ¶ 182 (emphasis added). Dr. Bims then treats
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id.
`
`As discussed in more detail below, these uses of the Unelected References are
`
`more than mere “background”—they specifically rely on the disclosures of the
`
`Unelected References, and a POSITA’s alleged knowledge of that disclosure, to
`
`supply missing claim elements in their invalidity mapping. Courts regularly strike
`
`this type of use of undisclosed or unelected references in expert reports. See, e.g.,
`
`Pactiv Corp. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., No. 10 C 461, 2013 WL 2384249, at *3 (N.D.
`
`Ill. May 29, 2013). In Pactiv, the Court excluded opinions relying on undisclosed
`
`prior art references despite them being “complementary to understanding the
`
`[disclosed] invalidity references.” Id. at *2. The Court recognized the catch-22
`
`presented by the undisclosed references. Id. If the undisclosed references are not
`
`prior art used for invalidity, “there is truly no reason for them to be in the Report[,]”
`
`while if they are used for invalidity (as the Defendants do here), “then they should
`
`have been disclosed” in invalidity contentions. Id. at *2. Either way, striking the use
`
`of those references is the result. The Court should likewise strike the use of 802.16e,
`
`Koo, and 802.11a in the expert reports and prohibit Defendants from using the same
`
`to perform a gap-filling obviousness analysis.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15012 Filed 06/20/24 Page 16 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`B. Defendants Expert Reports Do Not Use 802.16e, Koo, or
`802.11a to Provide the State of the Art.
`Some courts have allowed the use of unelected art for the limited purpose of
`
`establishing the state of the art at the relevant time of invention. See, e.g., Finjan,
`
`Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834, at *12 (N.D. Cal.
`
`May 24, 2016).5 But none of Defendants’ Opening Expert Reports use 802.16e, Koo,
`
`or 802.11a for this purpose.
`
`First, the 802.16e standard (or Koo’s discussion of it) should not and cannot
`
`be used to establish the background of the art given that it is not even background.
`
`802.16e was released in February of 2006, more than two years after the priority
`
`dates of the ’908, ’302, and ’941 patents and several months after the priority date
`
`of the ’450 Patent. Ex. DD (802.16e). Moreover, 802.16e is expressly an amendment
`
`to 802.16a, and, thus, does not disclose a POSITA’s understanding of 802.16a itself.
`
`Id. at Abstract.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ own expert report structure demonstrates that they use
`
`the Unelected References for invalidity rather than the state of the art. Dr. Bims’s
`
`report contains
`
`
`
`
`5 But see Life Techs. Corp. v. Biosearch Techs., Inc., No. C 12-00852 WHA, 2012
`WL 4097740, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012) (excluding any undisclosed references
`that would qualify as “prior art” even if offered because they relate to background
`or context); Emcore Corp. v. Optium Corp., No. CIV. A. 7-326, 2009 WL 3381800,
`at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2009) (granting motion in limine for use of references not
`previously disclosed in invalidity contentions).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15013 Filed 06/20/24 Page 17 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
` Ex. B at pgs. 13–20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` And Koo
`
`appears in the associated section for the invalidity of the ’908 Patent. Ex. B at ¶ 458.
`
`Dr. Bims’ report likewise
`
`Compare Ex. B at ¶¶ 182–84, 596 with id. at ¶¶ 62, 66.
`
`Dr. Wells similarly does not mention 802.16e in his background section
`
`
`
`The Buehrer Report’s invalidity analysis likewise discusses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Ex. C at ¶¶ 128–130, 160, 548, 987. The Buehrer Report briefly
`
`discusses
`
` For example, that background section explains that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. C at ¶ 72. In short, Defendants’ experts do not even
`
`pretend to use the Unelected References as background.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15014 Filed 06/20/24 Page 18 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Permitting the Use of 802.16e, 802.11a, and Koo Will Negate
`C.
`the Court’s Narrowing Order and Confuse the Jury.
`The Court already explained during the last status conference—and
`
`Defendants do not appear to dispute—that Defendants may not use unelected art to
`
`demonstrate invalidity. Allowing them to do so would negate the purpose of the
`
`prior-art-narrowing the Court ordered in response to Defendants’ own motion for
`
`case narrowing. ECF No. 99. Thus, since Defendants’ experts clearly use the
`
`Unelected References in this improper way, the Court should exclude that testimony.
`
`But even if the Court found that Defendants’ use of these references fell
`
`somewhere on the border between invalidity and background, courts regularly
`
`exclude the use of undisclosed art, even when it is offered to show the state of the
`
`art, where the introduction of the art would risk jury confusion. See Better Mouse
`
`Co. v. SteelSeries ApS, No. 2:14-cv-198, 2016 WL 3611560, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`
`5, 2016) (“[T]he Court has often barred parties from using unelected references
`
`when the use of those references risks juror confusion.”). In ContentGuard Holdings,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., for example, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to
`
`exclude an unelected reference, explaining that “the Court finds it difficult to
`
`completely separate the use of the [unelected reference] as a state-of-the-art
`
`reference from the use of [the reference] as an invalidity reference: the use for one
`
`purpose unavoidably bleeds into the other.” No. 2:13-cv-1112, 2015 WL 4944514,
`
`at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2015). The use of 802.16e, Koo, and 802.11a poses even
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15015 Filed 06/20/24 Page 19 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`greater risks of jury confusion and should likewise be excluded under Rule 403.
`
`For example, the 802.16a elected reference only differs in name from 802.16e
`
`by a single letter. And 802.16e is an amendment to 802.16a. Moreover, both are
`
`commonly referred to as WiMAX. There is little doubt that any discussion of
`
`802.16e will confuse the jury and lead to conflation of the two standards. Neo would
`
`be prejudiced by the jury believing a 2006 mobile IEEE standard—which does not
`
`even qualify as prior art—is the same as the elected 2001/2003 IEEE standard that
`
`is undisputedly not mobile. Defendants should not be allowed to use 802.16e to
`
`argue that it would have been obvious for 802.16a to support mobility. For this
`
`additional reason, the Court should exclude this testimony.
`
`D. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, this Court should strike paragraphs 134, 224–229,
`
`231, 444 of the Wells Report; paragraphs 181–182, 258, and 458 of the Bims Report;
`
`and paragraphs 62, 70–74, 89, 90, 98, 128–130, 160, 548, 711, 713–714, 987, and
`
`989 of the Buehrer Report, and associated testimony on unelected references.
`
`II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY RELYING ON
`NEO–AVANCI NEGOTIATIONS
`Second, Neo requests that this Court strike expert testimony that relies upon
`
`prejudicial evidence from negotiations aimed at settling the claims asserted in the
`
`present litigation. Around the time the first member cases of this MDL were filed,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15016 Filed 06/20/24 Page 20 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Now, Defendants’ damages experts seek to punish Neo’s good-faith efforts to
`
`reach an early compromise of its claims by directly calculating purported royalty
`
`amounts from
`
`
`
` Because this violates both Rules 408 and 403, the Court should prohibit
`
`Defendants’ experts from (1) testifying as to the substance of the Neo–Avanci
`
`negotiations, and (2) offering any damages opinions to the extent that they rely upon
`
`the Neo–Avanci negotiations.6
`
`A.
`
`Factual Background
`
`
`
`
`6 Specifically, Neo moves to exclude ¶¶ 227–33, 471–79, and Ex. 4.0 of the Bakewell
`Nissan Report; ¶¶ 229–35, 485–93, and Ex. 4.0 of the Bakewell Toyota Report; ¶¶
`76, 161–79, 181–83, 249, 256, and 259 of the Dean Primary Report; ¶¶ 31 and 121
`of the Dean FCA Appendix; ¶¶ 28 and 140 of the Dean Ford Appendix; ¶¶ 14 and
`109 of the Dean GM Appendix; ¶¶ 16, 126, and Table 3 of the Dean Tesla Appendix,
`and ¶¶ 215–18, 279, and 340–41 of the Meyer Report, and associated testimony.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15017 Filed 06/20/24 Page 21 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15018 Filed 06/20/24 Page 22 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15019 Filed 06/20/24 Page 23 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`GM, and Tesla’s damages expert, Ms. Dean, makes the most extensive use of the
`
`
`
`. FCA, Ford,
`
`negotiations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. at ¶¶ 178–79, 181–
`
`83, 249, 256, 259–60. As discussed further below, the Court should exclude these
`
`opinions pursuant to Rules 408 and 403.
`
`Legal Standards
`B.
`Rule 408 renders inadmissible any evidence of “furnishing, promising, or
`
`offering – or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept – a valuable
`
`consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise [a] claim” or “conduct
`
`or a statement made during compromise negotiations” to either prove or disprove
`
`the validity or amount of a disputed claim. FED. R. EVID. 408. The policy rationale
`
`for Rule 408 “is to protect the party who offers to settle . . . by preventing a party’s
`
`good-faith settlement offer from being used against him.” E.g., Putnam v. Henkel
`
`Consumer Adhesives, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-02011, 2007 WL 4794115, at *5 (N.D. Ga.
`
`Oct. 29, 2007) (citing Am. Soc’y of Composers, Authors & Publishers v.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15020 Filed 06/20/24 Page 24 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc., 912 F.2d 563, 580 (2d Cir. 1990)).
`
`Rule 403 provides that otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded “if its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice,
`
`misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative
`
`evidence.” FED. R. EVID. 403. In the context of Rule 403, “‘[u]nfair prejudice’ . . .
`
`means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis.” Advisory
`
`Committee’s Notes on Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Supreme Court has noted that, in
`
`assessing whether expert testimony should be excluded under Rule 403, the Court
`
`“exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses.” Daubert v. Merrell
`
`Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (quoting Weinstein, Rule 702 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence is Sound; It Should Not Be Amended, 138 F.R.D. 631,
`
`632 (1991)); see also Adkins v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LP, 672 F.Supp.3d 483,
`
`507 (S.D. Ohio 2023) (“‘[A]dmitting expert testimony is not a decision a court
`
`should undertake lightly, as juries tend to place extra weight on expert opinions.’”)
`
`(quoting Navarro v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 1:17-cv-00406, 2021 WL 868586,
`
`at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2021)).
`
`to
`C. The Neo–Avanci negotiations are an “attempt[]
`compromise” Neo’s infringement claims under Rule 408 and
`evidence regarding them is therefore inadmissible.
`When Defendants moved to compel documents related to Neo’s negotiations
`
`with Avanci in November of 2023, Neo ultimately agreed not to withhold Neo’s
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15021 Filed 06/20/24 Page 25 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`discussions about joining the Avanci patent pool as privileged.7 But Neo has
`
`consistently asserted that, whether or not these negotiations were discoverable, they
`
`were inadmissible under Rule 408. See, e.g., Ex. L (C. Stewart e-mail to J. LeRoy).
`
`The simple fact is that in discussing whether to join
`
`while this
`
`litigation was pending, the clear focus of the discussion was the compromise and
`
`resolution of Neo’s active claims against these Defendants. When Neo’s
`
`negotiations
`
`,
`
`And, while Neo joining
`
`; see also Ex. H at *27–28.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 The Court denied the remainder of Defendants’ motion seeking Neo’s discussions
`with Avanci
`. Ex. M at *10–11 (2023-11-
`27 Hearing Transcript).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15022 Filed 06/20/24 Page 26 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In sum, there can be no question that, although Neo’s negotiations were
`
`formally with a third-party
`
`, its consideration of joining
`
`amounted to
`
`
`
`
`
`In fact, Ms. Elizabeth Dean, damages expert for FCA, Ford, GM, and Tesla,
`
`expressly states
`
`See Ex. K (Dean Rpt.) at ¶ 256
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15023 Filed 06/20/24 Page 27 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Defendants’ experts’ opinions that rely on the Neo–Avanci
`negotiations should be excluded under Rule 403 because their
`probative value is outweighed by substantial prejudice to Neo.
`For the same policy reasons that underpin Rule 408, the Court should exclude
`
`Defendants’ experts opinions based upon the Neo–Avanci negotiations under Rule
`
`403. “The unfair prejudicial effect of an expert opinion based on a settlement offer
`
`is high;” potentially even more so than factual testimony regarding a settlement
`
`offer. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 12-cv-00630, 2014 WL 794328,
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 250-1, PageID.15024 Filed 06/20/24 Page 28 of 50
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014). This is because “[j]uries are likelier to credit experts,
`
`who are perceived to possess special relevant knowledge and are expected to help
`
`the jury reach the right conclusion, more than simple documentary evidence.” Id.
`
`Here, Defendants’ experts are purporting to directly calculate the value of
`
`Neo’s patents according to the financial terms from the Neo–Avanci negotiations;
`
`that is, they are using the negotiations to opine on the value of Neo’s claims in this
`
`litigation “in an attempt to reduce [Defendants’] damages.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin
`
`Int’l, Inc., No. 10-cv-03972, 2012 WL 5835741, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012).
`
`Permitting Defendants’ experts to give these opinions “would be contrary to the
`
`purpose and spirit of Rule 408, and would penalize [Neo] for attemptin