Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 24787
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG
`
`Case No. 2:14-CV-61-JRG
`
`CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`
` Before the Court are a number of motions concerning technical expert testimony: (1) Motion
`
`to Exclude Portions of the Reports and Testimony of Jean Renard Ward (Dkt. No. 679); (2) Motion
`
`to Exclude Portions of the Reports and Testimony of Dr. Brian Noble (Dkt. No. 683); (3) Motion to
`
`Exclude Portions of the Reports and Testimony of Dr. Steve White (Dkt. No. 684), (4) Motion to
`
`Exclude Portions of the Reports and Testimony of Atul Prakash (Dkt. No. 685), (5) Motion to
`
`Exclude Portions of the Noninfringement Reports and Testimony of Paul Clark, Brian Noble, John
`
`Kelly, and Gene Tsudik (Dkt. No. 688), (6) Motion to Exclude Portions of the Reports and
`
`Testimony of Dr. Paul Clark (Dkt. No. 690), (7) Motion to Exclude Portions of the Reports and
`
`Testimony of Dr. John P.J. Kelly (Dkt. No. 692), all filed by Plaintiff ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.
`
`Also before the Court is (8) Defendants’ Combined Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Reports
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 24788
`
`and Testimony of Michael T. Goodrich and David Martin (Dkt. No. 721). At the Court’s request, the
`
`Defendants consolidated the separate motions filed by various defendants on June 26, 2015, at docket
`
`number 232 in Case No. 2:14-cv-61, and docket numbers 665, 668, 673, 675, 677, 687, and 691 in
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-1112 into the Combined Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Reports and
`
`Testimony of Michael T. Goodrich and David Martin (Dkt. No. 721). The Court requested that the
`
`parties submit copies of each expert report in dispute, (Dkt. No. 782), which have subsequently been
`
`reviewed by the Court. The Court held a hearing on these motions on August 5, 2015. (Dkt. No.
`
`827.) For the reasons set forth below, the motions to strike are GRANTED to the extent specified
`
`below, and are otherwise DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`On December 18, 2013, ContentGuard filed suit against Amazon, Apple, BlackBerry,
`
`Huawei, and Motorola Mobility asserting claims of patent infringement of the patents in this suit.
`
`(Dkt. No. 1). On January 17, 2014, ContentGuard filed an amended complaint asserting the
`
`same patents against HTC and Samsung. (Dkt. No. 22).
`
`ContentGuard has asserted the following twenty claims from six related patents issued to
`
`Mark Stefik: Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, and 13 from U.S. Patent No. 8,393,007 (“the ’007 patent”);
`
`Claims 1, 7, and 13 from U.S. Patent No. 8,370,956 (“the ’956 patent”); Claims 1 and 8 from
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,523,072 (“the ’072 patent”); Claims 18, 21, and 34 from U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,269,576 (“the ’576 patent”); and Claims 1, 21, and 58 from U.S. Patent No. 6,963,859 (“the
`
`’859 patent”) (collectively, the “Stefik patents”). ContentGuard has also asserted the following
`
`five claims from two related patents issued to Mai Nguyen: Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,774,280 (“the ’280 patent”); and Claims 1, 3, and 5 from U.S. Patent No. 8,001,053 (“the ’053
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “Nguyen patents”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 24789
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`An expert witness may provide opinion testimony if “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical,
`
`or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony
`
`is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
`
`principles and methods to the facts of the case.” FED. R. EVID. 702.
`
`Rule 702 requires a district court to make a preliminary determination, when requested,
`
`as to whether the requirements of the rule are satisfied with regard to a particular expert’s
`
`proposed testimony. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999); Daubert v.
`
`Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592–93 (1993). District courts are accorded broad
`
`discretion in making Rule 702 determinations. Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 (“[T]he trial judge
`
`must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining
`
`whether particular expert testimony is reliable.”). Although the Fifth Circuit and other courts
`
`have identified various factors that the district court may consider in determining whether an
`
`expert’s testimony should be admitted, the common nature of these factors direct the trial court
`
`to consider as its ultimate inquiry whether the expert’s testimony is sufficiently reliable and
`
`relevant to be helpful to the finder of fact and thus to warrant admission at trial. United States v.
`
`Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 424 (5th Cir. 2010).
`
`Importantly, in a jury trial setting, the Court’s role under Daubert is not to weigh the
`
`expert testimony to the point of supplanting the jury’s fact-finding role. See Micro Chem., Inc. v.
`
`Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1391–92 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (applying Fifth Circuit law) (“When, as
`
`here, the parties’ experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to
`
`evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert’s testimony.”); Pipitone v. Biomatrix,
`
`Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 249–50 (5th Cir. 2002) (“‘[t]he trial court’s role as gatekeeper [under
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 24790
`
`Daubert] is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.’ . . . Thus, while
`
`exercising its role as a [gatekeeper], a trial court must take care not to transform a Daubert
`
`hearing into a trial on the merits”) (quoting FED. R. EVID. 702 advisory committee note).
`
`Instead, the Court’s role is limited to that of a gatekeeper, ensuring that the evidence in dispute is
`
`at least sufficiently reliable and relevant to the issue before the jury so as to be appropriate for
`
`the jury’s consideration. See Pipitone, 288 F.3d at 249–50. As the Supreme Court explained in
`
`Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and
`
`careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking
`
`shaky but admissible evidence.” See Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 461 (5th Cir. 2002).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Related Grounds for the Motions to Strike
`
`1.
`
`Pfleeger References
`
`The Court previously excluded the Pfleeger references from Defendants’ invalidity
`
`contentions because the Court found that Defendants had not shown good cause sufficient to add
`
`a reference to their invalidity contentions late in the litigation when they had previously known
`
`about the reference but not asserted it for over a year. (June 23, 2015, H’rg Tr., Dkt. No. 660, at
`
`35:8–13.) Plaintiff argues that Defendants Apple, Google, HTC, Huawei, Motorola, and
`
`Samsung are now attempting to maneuver around the Court’s previous order by including
`
`Pfleeger as a state-of-the-art reference, rather than an invalidity reference. (Dkt. No. 679, at 11–
`
`12.) Defendants argue that even though the Court excluded Pfleeger as an invalidity reference,
`
`Pfleeger can still be used to show the state of the art, particularly as it was known to the inventor,
`
`at the time the patent was filed. (Dkt. No. 749, at 15.) Further, Defendants explicitly affirmed
`
`that they would not attempt to show Pfleeger as an anticipation or obviousness reference. (Id.);
`
`see also (Aug. 5, 2015, H’rg Tr., Dkt. No. 827, at 9:23–10:2.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 24791
`
`The Court is sympathetic to Defendants’ position regarding the need to show the state of
`
`the prior art and accepts counsel’s representation that Defendants would not overtly use Pfleeger
`
`as a per se invalidity reference. However, the Court, after considering the briefing and oral
`
`argument, finds that the portions of Mr. Ward’s report containing discussion of the substance of
`
`Pfleeger must be stricken in view of the Court’s previous order, including at least from
`
`Paragraphs 113, 121, 132, 134, 139, 140, 141, 178, 195, 391-94, 402-05, 511-524, 580, 615-16,
`
`627-28, 641-42, 655-56, 669-70, 683-84, 702-03, 716-17, 739-40, and 746 of Mr. Ward’s report.
`
`After examining the paragraphs in question, including the paragraphs that Defendants expressly
`
`identified as only touching on the state of the prior art, the Court finds it difficult to completely
`
`separate the use of Pfleeger as a state-of-the-art reference from the use of Pfleeger as an
`
`invalidity reference: the use for one purpose unavoidably bleeds into the other. Accordingly, the
`
`Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 679) as it pertains to the Pfleeger references in the
`
`above cited paragraphs.
`
`2.
`
`VDE References
`
`The Court previously denied Apple’s request to amend its invalidity contentions with any
`
`VDE references other than U.S. Patent. No. 5,892,900 (“Ginter”), because the Court found that
`
`Apple had not shown an adequate basis to overcome the prejudice to ContentGuard of adding the
`
`VDE references this late in litigation. (April 28, 2015, H’rg Tr., Dkt. No. 577, at 44:5–16.) The
`
`Court also granted a subsequent motion to exclude based on its earlier order. (Dkt. No. 820.)
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendant Apple has never asserted the “VDE system” against the Nguyen
`
`patents and is now attempting to circumvent the Court’s previous order by “recit[ing]
`
`contentions (including two figures) about ‘the VDE system’ that are based not on anything in the
`
`public Ginter patent reference, but on deposition testimony from Mr. Ginter regarding the
`
`operation of the precluded VDE system.” (Dkt. No. 685, at 14.) Apple argues that Ginter was
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 24792
`
`always asserted against the Nguyen patents and that the “two embodiments (‘traveling objects’ and
`
`‘stationary objects’) described and depicted in paragraph 269 of Dr. Prakash’s report, and also
`
`described by Mr. Ginter during his deposition, are indeed disclosed in the Ginter patent.” (Dkt. No.
`
`748, at 14.)
`
`After considering the briefing and oral argument, the Court finds that the portions of the
`
`sentences from Paragraph 269 of Dr. Prakash’s report, which contain information about the VDE
`
`systems which is not directly from the Ginter patent, including the portions of the report based
`
`on information obtained from Mr. Ginter’s deposition testimony, must be stricken in view of the
`
`Court’s previous order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 685) as it
`
`pertains to information about the VDE system that is not disclosed directly from the Ginter
`
`patent.
`
`3. Wyman References
`
`Plaintiff argues that “[d]espite amending their Invalidity Contentions multiple times,
`
`Defendants never asserted [U.S. Patent Nos. 5,260,999 (the “’999 Patent”) and 5,204,897 (the
`
`“’897 Patent”) (collectively, “the Wyman patents”)] as prior art against the meta-rights patents in
`
`their Invalidity Contentions.” (Dkt. No. 679, at 11; Dkt. No. 685, at 13.) Plaintiff further argues
`
`that Defendants are now attempting to assert “[the Wyman patents] against the meta-rights
`
`patents for the first time in [their] expert report[s].” (Dkt. No. 679, at 11; Dkt. No. 685, at 13.)
`
`The ’999 Patent had previously been asserted against at least the Stefik patents. (Dkt. No. 749,
`
`at 14.) The non-Apple Defendants argue that they did not “appreciate the full relevance of [the
`
`’999 Patent] to the Nguyen patents,” (id.), until “ContentGuard asserted an entirely new theory
`
`of infringement regarding ‘meta-rights’ in its April 20, 2015 fifth infringement contentions,”
`
`(Dkt. No. 805, at 4). Defendants further argue that they “promptly identified [the ’999 Patent] as
`
`being relevant to the invalidity of the Nguyen patents [upon realizing the ’999 Patent’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 24793
`
`relevance],” (Dkt. No. 749, at 14). Apple argues that “Dr. Prakash’s report does not assert [the
`
`’897 Patent] as a § 102 or 103 reference against the Nguyen patents.” (Dkt. No. 748, at 13.)
`
`After considering the briefing and oral argument, the Court finds that assertion of the
`
`Wyman patents against the Nguyen patents is untimely, and as a result, those portions of Mr.
`
`Ward’s report (Paragraphs 882–887 and Exhibits X1 and X2) and Dr. Prakash’s report
`
`(Paragraphs 182 and 222) should be stricken. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
`
`motions (Dkt. Nos. 679 and 685) as they pertain to the Wyman patents as invalidity references
`
`against the Nguyen patents.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction Related Grounds for the Motions to Strike
`
`Plaintiff argues that portions of Defendants’ various experts’ reports and testimony are
`
`improper because Defendants’ respective experts misapply the Court’s claim construction. See
`
`(Dkt. No. 679, at 5–11; Dkt. No. 683, at 4–12; Dkt. No. 684, at 4–9; Dkt. No. 685, at 5–13; Dkt.
`
`No. 690, at 4–13; Dkt. No. 692, at 4–12.) Similarly, Defendants argue that portions of Plaintiff’s
`
`experts’ reports and testimony are improper because Plaintiff’s experts misapply the Court’s
`
`claim construction. See (Dkt. No. 721, at 1.)
`
`As an initial matter, the Court notes, that during a hearing held on July 27, 2015, the
`
`Court asked the parties whether any outstanding claim construction issues needed to be dealt
`
`with prior to trial. See (July 27, 2015, H’rg Tr., Dkt. No. 818, at 31:23–32:1.) Other than one
`
`discrete issue that has already been completely briefed (a motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No.
`
`480), no party identified any remaining claim construction issues. See (id. at 32:2–13.)
`
`Regarding the particular expert reports and testimony disputes at hand, IT IS ORDERED that
`
`no experts are to render any conclusions regarding the scope of the patents-in-suit or particular
`
`claim limitations that deviate from this Court’s Claim Construction Memorandum and Order
`
`(Dkt. No. 459). Accordingly, all experts, whether Plaintiff’s or Defendants’, are hereby
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 24794
`
`excluded from providing any opinions that violate these constraints, and any portions of their
`
`reports in conflict with this Order are stricken.
`
`Further, all experts are hereby excluded from providing any opinions based on an
`
`interpretation of the Court’s construction that is the equivalent of any construction that the Court
`
`previously considered and expressly rejected. In particular, with regard to the following
`
`previously construed claim terms, the identified claim construction arguments have previously
`
`been considered and expressly rejected in the Court’s Claim Construction Order, and therefore,
`
`the Court ORDERS that:
`
` “rights,” “usage rights,” “usage rights information” – No expert may opine or
`
`insinuate that a mere association between the content and the usage rights is
`
`enough to meet the requirement that the usage rights be “attached” to the content.
`
`See (Dkt. No. 459, at 33.) A mere reference, with nothing more to indicate that
`
`the usage rights should be attached or treated as attached to the content, is not
`
`enough. The bolded portion from the following sentence from paragraph 48 of
`
`Mr. Goodrich’s report is an exemplary opinion implicated by this Order and must
`
`be stricken: “Thus usage rights may be attached to content by placing them inside
`
`the same data structure or file or through the use of links or references to the
`
`content from the data structure containing the usage right.” (Dkt. No. 721-7, at
`
`¶48 (emphasis added).)
`
` “rights,” “usage rights,” “usage rights information” – No expert may opine or
`
`insinuate that the attachment between the content and the usage rights must be
`
`permanent. See (Dkt. No. 459, at 33.) The bolded portion from the following
`
`sentences from paragraph 160 of Mr. Ward’s report are exemplary opinions
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 24795
`
`implicated by this Order and must be stricken: “A key feature of the present
`
`invention is that usage rights are permanently ‘attached’ to the digital work. . . .
`
`Thus, the usage rights and any associated fees assigned by a creator and
`
`subsequent distributor will always remain with a digital work.” (Dkt. No. 679-1,
`
`at ¶ 160 (emphasis added).)
`
` “repository” and “trusted” – No expert may opine or insinuate that a
`
`“repository” or “trusted device” must maintain the three integrities “at all times.”
`
`See (Dkt. No. 459, at 15.) The bolded portion from the following sentence from
`
`paragraph 138 of Mr. Clark’s report is an exemplary opinion implicated by this
`
`Order and must be stricken: “Thus, if an accused repository, recipient computing
`
`device, or recipient apparatus allows access to any ‘information’ by a nontrusted
`
`system (including, but not limited to ‘content’), then it cannot be found to possess
`
`the required ‘physical integrity’ and, accordingly, cannot be a ‘repository,’ a
`
`‘trusted’ device, or ‘trusted’ apparatus.” (Dkt. No. 690-1, at ¶ 138 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
`Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. No. 679, Dkt. No. 683, Dkt.
`
`No. 684, Dkt. No. 685, Dkt. No. 690, Dkt. No. 692) and Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 721) only
`
`as they relate to the claim construction positions explicitly identified above. The claim
`
`construction positions of Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’ motions are DENIED in all other
`
`respects.
`
`C.
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents Related Grounds for the Motions to Strike
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s disclosure of Plaintiff’s Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`(“DOE”) theory is untimely. See (Dkt. No. 721, at 25–26.) Defendants also argue that the DOE
`
`theory improperly attempts to revive a claim construction position previously rejected by the
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 24796
`
`Court, vitiates the Court’s claim construction ruling, and is barred by prosecution history
`
`estoppel (“PHE”). See (id. at 16–25.) Relatedly, Apple argues that Plaintiff did not adequately
`
`or timely disclose that the use of the “Messages” program to transfer files between Apple
`
`employees met the “behavioral integrity” requirement of the patents-in-suit. See (id. at 26–28.)
`
`Plaintiff responds that, as an initial matter, Plaintiff properly amended its infringement
`
`contentions within 30 days of the Court’s Claim Construction Order, as allowed under the Local
`
`Rules, and adequately disclosed Plaintiff’s infringement theories in its infringement contentions.
`
`See (Dkt. No. 740, at 18–21.) Further, Plaintiff argues that it is not attempting to revive any
`
`rejected claim construction positions and that though the Court rejected Plaintiff’s proposed
`
`claim construction, the Court did not expressly find that the “behavioral integrity” limitation
`
`could not be met through the use of an equivalent to a “digital certificate.” See (id. at 11–14.)
`
`Plaintiff also argues that, in regard to Apple, any late disclosure of infringement theories, to the
`
`extent that such disclosure was late, was a result of Apple’s own “deficient source code
`
`production and belated depositions.” See (id. at 20–21.)
`
`The Court will address the PHE arguments later in this Order. After considering the
`
`briefing and oral argument, the Court finds the DOE disclosures were timely. Accordingly, the
`
`Court DENIES Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 721) as it pertains striking the DOE theories
`
`disclosed in Mr. Goodrich’s and Mr. Martin’s reports. The Court notes, however, that the Court
`
`expressly rejected the inclusion of the language, “in other words, an assurance that the software
`
`comes from a source known to the repository,” in the construction of “behavioral integrity,”
`
`because the “additional language . . . would tend to broaden the scope of the disputed term.”
`
`(Dkt. No. 459, at 19–21.) In accordance with that decision, IT IS ORDERED that no expert
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 24797
`
`may opine or insinuate that a “digital certificate” is simply “an assurance that the software comes
`
`from a source known to the repository.”
`
`D.
`
`Prosecution History Estoppel Related Grounds for the Motions to Strike
`
`Plaintiff argues that portions of Dr. Kelly’s report improperly raise legal issues, such as
`
`ensnarement and PHE, which should not be presented to the jury. See (Dkt. No. 692, at 12–13.)
`
`Apple specifically responds that Dr. Kelly’s report properly discloses the underlying facts
`
`necessary to present Apple’s PHE arguments. See (Dkt. No. 738, at 11–12.) Relatedly,
`
`Defendants argue that Mr. Goodrich’s and Mr. Martin’s theories that “behavioral integrity” is
`
`met through the DOE are barred by PHE. See (Dkt. No. 721, at 21.) ContentGuard responds by
`
`arguing that, procedurally, the PHE arguments have been waived by Defendants’ silence prior to
`
`the Daubert motion and that, substantively, the patentee did not clearly surrender subject matter.
`
`See (Dkt. No. 740, at 15.) Defendants respond by arguing that the DOE infringement theory was
`
`not disclosed until April 20, 2015, a day before the deadline to file the letter briefs for dispositive
`
`motions, which is why the PHE arguments were not raised prior to the Daubert stage. See (Aug.
`
`5, 2015, H’rg Tr., Dkt. No. 827, at 107:11–108:2.)
`
`After considering the briefing and oral argument, the Court finds that PHE arguments are
`
`untimely, and as a result, those portions of Dr. Kelly’s report (Paragraphs 296–336) are stricken.
`
`Though Defendants argue that the PHE arguments are a response to Plaintiff’s Amended
`
`Infringement Contentions served on the day that the letter briefing was due, Defendants did not
`
`request an extension or any relief to rectify the problems which they assert were created by this
`
`alleged late amendment. For example, Defendants did not request leave to file a motion for
`
`summary judgment in which they could have laid out the particular timing issues at play here.
`
`Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 692) as it pertains to the
`
`prosecution history estoppel arguments contained in Dr. Kelly’s report and DENIES
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 24798
`
`Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 721) as it pertains to a prosecution history estoppel bar to
`
`ContentGuard’s assertion of the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`E.
`ContentGuard’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Portions of the Noninfringement
`Reports and Testimony Related to Rooting, Jailbreaking, and TunesKit Software
`
`Plaintiff argues that portions of Defendants’ noninfringement experts’ reports and
`
`testimony are improper because Defendants’ respective experts relied on facts, including tests,
`
`that were not properly disclosed during fact discovery, modified the accused instrumentalities
`
`such that any test results are irrelevant, and failed to disclose enough facts to determine whether
`
`the tests were reliable. See (Dkt. No. 688, at 3–15.) Defendants first respond by arguing that the
`
`facts underlying their tests were timely disclosed and that they did not need to disclose their
`
`testing methodology. See, e.g., (Dkt. No. 750, at 3–5.) Defendants further argue that their test
`
`results are relevant because they prove that the accused instrumentalities do not meet the claim
`
`limitations of the Patents-in-Suit, particularly as they relate to the three integrities. See, e.g.,
`
`(Dkt. No. 721, at 1.) Finally, Defendants argue that the experts provided more than sufficient
`
`detail such that the tests could be reproduced and determined reliable. See, e.g., (Dkt. No. 750,
`
`at 12–14.).
`
`As an initial matter, the Court does not find the timing of the disclosure of this evidence
`
`to be improper. Defendants timely disclosed the facts that are the subject of the tests. However,
`
`after considering the briefing and oral argument, the Court does find that the rooting and
`
`jailbreaking related modifications made by Dr. Clark, Dr. Noble, and Dr. Kelly render the test
`
`results irrelevant and the portions from their respective reports and testimonies relating to such
`
`are stricken. After much consideration, the Court has determined that the issue is not whether it
`
`is possible to eventually modify the accused instrumentalities so that they no longer meet the
`
`claim limitations of the asserted patents. Rather, the question is whether the accused
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 24799
`
`instrumentalities, as sold, meet all the claim limitations as construed by the Court. Similarly, the
`
`Court also finds that the installation of the TunesKit Application renders Dr. Kelly’s test results
`
`irrelevant and the portions from his report and testimony relating to such are stricken.
`
`Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 688).
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Having considered all of Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Exclude Portions
`
`of the Reports and Testimony of Jean Renard Ward (Dkt. No. 679); (2) Motion to Exclude Portions
`
`of the Reports and Testimony of Dr. Brian Noble (Dkt. No. 683); (3) Motion to Exclude Portions of
`
`the Reports and Testimony of Dr. Steve White (Dkt. No. 684), (4) Motion to Exclude Portions of the
`
`Reports and Testimony of Atul Prakash (Dkt. No. 685), (5) Motion to Exclude Portions of the
`
`Noninfringement Reports and Testimony of Paul Clark, Brian Noble, John Kelly, and Gene Tsudik
`
`(Dkt. No. 688), (6) Motion to Exclude Portions of the Reports and Testimony of Dr. Paul Clark (Dkt.
`
`No. 690), (7) Motion to Exclude Portions of the Reports and Testimony of Dr. John P.J. Kelly (Dkt.
`
`No. 692) are GRANTED as specifically set forth above and DENIED in all other respects.
`
`Having considered all of Defendants’ objections, Defendants’ Combined Motion to Strike
`
`Portions of the Expert Reports and Testimony of Michael T. Goodrich and David Martin (Dkt. No.
`
`721) is GRANTED as specifically set forth above, CARRIED as to Mr. Goodrich’s indirect
`
`infringement opinions regarding the OEM Defendants, and DENIED in all other respects.
`
`Additionally, having ordered further briefing from the Parties regarding the Motion to
`
`Exclude Portions of the Reports and Testimony of Dr. John P.J. Kelly (Dkt. No. 692), the Court
`
`CARRIES that motion specifically in regard to ContentGuard’s allegation that Apple relies on
`
`evidence unrelated to the Representative Products.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 24800
`Case 2:14—cv—00061—JRG Document 423 Filed 12/04/15 Page 14 of 14 Page|D #: 24800
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of August, 2015.
`
` RODNEY GIL RAP
`
`UNITED STAT
`
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`14
`14