`
`Exhibit H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 249-8 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Highly Confidential - Outside Counsel Only
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Case No. 1:14-CV-02396-PGG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE, INC., AND YOUTUBE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF JEFFREY H. KINRICH
`DECEMBER 20, 2019
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 249-8 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Highly Confidential - Outside Counsel Only
`
`32.
`
`I understand that Dr. Mitzenmacher will opine that none of Google’s proposed
`
`alternatives are viable, either because they are too ill-defined to be determined to be non-
`
`infringing; fail to provide the benefits of the patented method and are therefore not acceptable
`
`alternatives; raise significant questions regarding feasibility and acceptability that Google has not
`
`itself analyzed and has not provided sufficient evidence from which such an analysis might be
`
`conducted; or are not described with enough specificity to permit evaluation. I also understand
`
`that Google has not implemented any of its proposed non-infringing alternatives in the five years
`
`since the commencement of this litigation, with the exception of approaches that
`
`Dr. Mitzenmacher opines are still infringing.
`
`33.
`
`One of the alternatives proposed by Google involves relocating the servers that
`
`run the Content ID system outside the United States.46 Although Google has not performed even
`
`a cursory analysis of the cost and potential consequences of such a move,47 its employees
`
`acknowledge that latency, reliability, and other adverse issues may result.48 I understand that
`
`Dr. Mitzenmacher will opine that there are likely significant resource and performance costs to
`
`this alternative, and that he has seen no evidence that this is a viable alternative. I therefore do
`
`not consider this alternative further.
`
`34.
`
`A second set of the non-infringing alternatives proposed by Google, including the
`
`second through eighth, twelfth, fourteenth, and fifteenth alternatives proposed in its responses to
`
`Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 13, involves modification of the matching and fingerprinting
`
`technology of the Patents-in-Suit. For instance, the second alternative proposed by Google
`
`
`46 Third Supplemental Responses, no. 13.
`47 Erb Tr., 262:8–12; Konrad Tr., 68:15–69:9.
`48 Erb Tr., 260:2–11; Konrad Tr., 68:7–14.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 249-8 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Highly Confidential - Outside Counsel Only
`
`• The profitability and contribution of the ’988 and ’237 patents suggest a
`
`reasonable royalty of approximately
`
` to
`
` percent of U.S. revenues,
`
`depending on the period. As expected, the results for the ’988 and the
`
`’237 patents are greater than, but in line with, the expectations derived
`
`from the Audible Magic and RightsFlow analyses. This suggests that the
`
`royalty amounts computed above are reasonable.
`
`• The profitability and contribution of the ’464 Patent suggest a reasonable
`
`royalty of approximately
`
` percent of royalties (assuming only the
`
`’464 Patent is infringed).
`
`90.
`
`Based on these conclusions, the results of the hypothetical negotiation are as
`
`follows:
`
`• The ’988 Patent negotiation covers the period from August 31, 2011,
`
`through either December 2019 or December 2018, depending on whether
`
`Siberia infringes. If the ’988 Patent is found to be infringed, the royalties
`
`owed by Google to Network-1 are $242.9 million through 2019, or
`
`$174.2 million through 2018.
`
`• The ’237 Patent negotiation covers the period from June 19, 2012, through
`
`either December 2019 or December 2018, again depending upon whether
`
`Siberia infringes. If the ’237 Patent is found to be infringed (but the
`
`’988 Patent is not), the royalties owed by Google to Network-1 are
`
`$234.9 million through 2019, or $166.3 million through 2018.
`
`
`
`39
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
