Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 15980
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC. ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
` §
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S OPPOSITION
`TO APPLE INC.’S DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE
`OPINIONS OF MR. ALAN RATLIFF RELATING TO DAMAGES (DKT. 231)
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 15981
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s “Technical Apportionment” Is Neither Arbitrary Nor
`Unsupported ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Ratliff Properly Relied on the Opinions of AGIS’s Technical
`Expert .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Technical Analysis is a Sufficient Basis for the
`Apportionment of Patented Versus Non-Patented Features ....................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
` ................................................................... 9
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s 20% “Insurance Adjustment” is Supported and Reasonable ........... 13
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s Reasonable Royalty Analysis is Not Based on the EMVR ............. 14
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 15982
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................5, 11
`
`Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Advance Publications, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:11-cv-0029-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2014)....................................................4
`
`Chrimar Holding Company, LLC v. ALE USA Inc.,
`2018 WL 2120618 (Fed. Cir. 2018).........................................................................................7
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .............................................................................................................1, 3
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................2
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................9
`
`Freeny v. Murphy Oil Corp.,
`Case No. 2:13-cv-791-RSP, Dkt. 151 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2015) .............................................4
`
`i4i Ltd. Patrnership v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) .................................................................................................................3
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd.,
`No. 6:11-cv-622, 2014 WL 12465449 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2014) ............................................7
`
`Salazar v. HTC Corp.,
`Case No. 2:16-cv-01096-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 226 (E.D. Tex. April 13, 2018) ..............................4
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................1
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v.Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................4
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................2, 7
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 15983
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Damages Expert Report of Alan Ratliff
`Ratliff Expert Report Exhibits and Workpapers
`Declaration of Alan Ratliff
`Deposition of Alan Ratliff, Dec. 7, 2018
`Expert Report of Joseph C. McAlexander III Regarding Infringement
`www.appannie.com webpage for Family Tracker - iOS Store Top Apps
`Deposition of Joseph McAlexander III, Dec. 7, 2018
`Deposition of
`
`
`Ex. A
`Ex. B
`Ex. C
`Ex. D
`Ex. E
`Ex. F
`Ex. G
`Ex. H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 15984
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“Plaintiff” or “AGIS”) submits this
`
`memorandum in opposition to the motion by Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”) to
`
`exclude certain opinions of AGIS’s damages expert, Alan Ratliff, under Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). For the reasons set forth below, Apple’s motion should be
`
`denied.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 15985
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple seeks to exclude Mr. Ratliff’s opinions, attacking:
`
`. See Dkt. 231 at 1-3.
`
`
`
`Apple cites to a variety of arbitrary, selective and unrelated computations hoping to shock
`
`the Court as to the total amount of damages at stake. These metrics have only one thing in
`
`common: none of them have any relationship to the “value attributable to the infringing features
`
`of the product,” which is the ultimate focus of a reasonable royalty determination. Ericsson,
`
`Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`Apple also disingenuously asserts that it provides the Accused Apps “for free” as if to suggest
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 15986
`
`they have no value, while monetizing those apps through increased device sales, advertising and
`
`in other ways through its device ecosystem.2
`
`
`
`Apple’s motion raises questions best addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal
`
`expert testimony at trial. Mr. Ratliff’s apportionment analysis using Apple-produced data,
`
`reliable and uncontested third-party data and technical expert opinions, in the context of a
`
`hypothetical negotiation framework, is sound and sufficiently reliable to be heard by the jury.
`
`Therefore, Apple’s motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`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 Daubert at 592-93; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149
`
`(1999). “[I]t is not the district court’s role under Daubert to evaluate the correctness of facts
`
`underlying an expert’s testimony.” i4i Ltd. Patrnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 856
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010); see also, United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, 80 F.3d 1074, 1078 (5th Cir.
`
`1996) (The district courts are not “intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.”).
`
`If a party offering expert testimony can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the expert
`
`is qualified, the expert’s testimony is relevant, and the testimony is reliable, a court should not
`
`exclude it. Daubert at 590–91. “Under Rule 702, the question is whether the expert relied on
`
`facts sufficiently related to the disputed issue.” i4i Ltd. Partnership, 598 F.3d at 856; see also
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v.Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 15987
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Mr. Ratliff’s “Technical Apportionment” Is Neither Arbitrary Nor
`Unsupported
`
`1.
`
`Mr. Ratliff Properly Relied on the Opinions of AGIS’s
`Technical Expert
`
`
`
`Apple contends that Ratliff’s technical apportionment between patented and non-patented
`
`elements of the Accused Apps should be rejected because his
`
`
`
`’” Dkt. 231 at 4. Apple then argues that Mr. Ratliff’s analysis, relying only on
`
`what Apple deems “conclusory remarks by a technical expert” cannot support a 40%
`
`apportionment to the allegedly patented features. Dkt. 231 at 5. However, it is normal and
`
`acceptable for a damages expert to rely upon a technical expert in connection with comparable
`
`license and apportionment analyses. See, e.g., Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Advance
`
`Publications, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-0029-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2014) at 5 (denying
`
`motion to exclude damages opinions where tied to the expected testimony of technical expert and
`
`relevant to the facts of the case and the issues on which expert would be testifying); Freeny v.
`
`Murphy Oil Corp., Case No. 2:13-cv-791-RSP, Dkt. 151, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2015)
`
`(denying motion to exclude damages expert testimony relying on discussions with a technical
`
`expert and the technical expert’s report holding); Salazar v. HTC Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-
`
`01096-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 226, at *4 (E.D. Tex. April 13, 2018) (motion to exclude damages expert
`
`testimony denied, holding “Damages experts calculating a reasonable royalty routinely rely on
`
`facts or data from a party’s technical expert.”) citing Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286,
`
`1321 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“patent damages experts often rely on technical expertise outside of their
`
`field when . . . valuing the importance of the specific, infringing features in a complex device”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 15988
`
`Because Apple’s issues go to the correctness of Mr. Ratliff’s positions, not the sufficiency of the
`
`evidence supporting his testimony, Apple's motion should be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Technical Analysis is a Sufficient Basis
`for the Apportionment of Patented Versus Non-Patented
`Features
`
`Apple challenges Mr. McAlexander’s technical analysis used for the apportionment as
`
`being conclusory, but disregards relevant portions of his analysis. Contrary to Apple’s
`
`mischaracterization,
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 15989
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`.
`
`-
`
`. Contrary to Apple’s assertions, Mr. Ratliff’s conclusion was not
`
`plucked out of thin air or contained in a black box, but is transparent.
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`.
`
`Apple’s reliance on ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd., No. 6:11-cv-622, 2014 WL
`
`12465449, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2014), is misplaced. In ROY-G-BIV, the Court saw no effort
`
`to explain an apportionment between patented and unpatented elements of an accused product
`
`except for references in a footnote in a supplemental report to unspecified conversations with
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 15990
`
`defendant’s personnel and the infringement expert. The Court concluded that the expert
`
`determined a royalty range and landed on a final royalty per unit without any explanation. ROY-
`
`G-BIV Corp., 2014 WL 12465449, at *3. In contrast, Mr. Ratliff expressly cites his reliance
`
`upon the McAlexander Report, determined a starting point price associated with the incremental
`
`functions and features of the Accused Apps and based his conclusions on objective evidence and
`
`substantial qualitative analysis. The fact
`
`that Mr. Ratliff’s computation
`
`is relatively
`
`straightforward does not make the apportionment unreliable, nor does that justify excluding it.
`
`See Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[W]e have never
`
`required absolute precision in th[e] task [of assigning value to a feature that may not have been
`
`individually sold]; on the contrary, it is well-understood that this process may involve some
`
`degree of approximation and uncertainty.")
`
`
`
`Similar to this case, in Chrimar Holding Company, LLC v. ALE USA Inc., 2018 WL
`
`2120618, at *9 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Chrimar’s damages expert relied on the technical expert for
`
`apportioning between patented and non-patented features, such as the statement the patents
`
`”relate to the majority and the most critical aspects of the standard,” and assigned a value to the
`
`patented features. Id. In Chrimar, the Court found that the damages expert’s opinion that his
`
`estimate of value attributable to the patented features did not encompass the value of “the
`
`nonpatented features does not flunk the standards of reliability and reasonableness.” Id. While
`
`Apple may differ with the analysis and question the ultimate result, the proper time for that is at
`
`trial where Apple will have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Ratliff.3
`
`
`3 Apple also argues that Mr. Ratliff should have conducted a survey or performed some unspecified
`market analysis in connection with the technical apportionment. Dkt. 231 at 4. This confuses a technical
`apportionment analysis, which separates the value of the patented and non-patented technology, with a
`price apportionment based on a willingness-to-pay survey sometimes used to determine the starting point
`market value as part of an SSPPU apportionment.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 15991
`
`Apple also argues that Mr. Ratliff and Mr. McAlexander did not account for other
`
`“technical features” of the Accused Apps or other unspecified Apple technology, such as the
`
`“look-and-feel/ease-of-use or battery life-saving features of the Accused Apps.” Dkt. 231 at 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple’s reliance on Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC, 879
`
`F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018), is also misplaced. In that case, the court excluded the damages
`
`expert’s opinion because it ignored defendants patented components, and “[m]erely conclude[ed]
`
`that other components do not affect the value of the accused [product]. . . .” Id. at 1350.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 15992
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This conflates Mr. Ratliff’s determination of the
`
`estimated starting point value of the Accused Apps with a market willingness-to-pay analysis
`
`that would evaluate what users would pay for the Accused Apps (and would necessarily preclude
`
`any assumption that a truly “free” option was available). Apple simplistically concludes that
`
`since users currently get the Accused Apps for free, any fees Apple might charge would result in
`
`lower usage based on the law of supply and demand. But this “apples to oranges” comparison is
`
`disconnected from the facts of this case and the SSPPU analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`. Since Apple did not produce any
`
`data allowing AGIS to determine the ecosystem value of the Accused Apps, Mr. Ratliff
`
`
`
`.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 15993
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Clearly, there is sufficient, reliable market data supporting Mr. Ratliff’s conservative starting
`
`point price for comparable fee-based apps.
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`4 Apple focuses on user reviews rather than downloads, repeatedly asserting that Family Tracker has only
`11 user reviews in the Apple App Store.
`
`
`
`; Ex. F [App Annie Webpage for Family Tracker iOS App]. Tellingly,
`-
`Apple has not produced download statistics for iOS Family Tracker which it must possess.
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 15994
`
`. Apple is free to address these issues through cross-examination and
`
`through its own expert’s testimony. See Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1322 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (holding that the issue of Apple’s expert’s selected substitute computer chip for
`
`designing around the patents “is one of evidentiary weight and not admissibility.”)
`
`
`
`Apple aims to shock by disingenuously claiming that Mr. Ratliff’s analysis would result
`
`in the third most successful app of all time and erroneously claiming that his usage adjustment
`
`would mean that 70% of the U.S. population would purchase the Accused Apps at his estimated
`
`market value. Dkt. 231 at 9. As already discussed, Mr. Ratliff did not perform a willingness-to-
`
`pay analysis which is what Apple's statements require to be relevant. The “success” Apple is
`
`referring to is not distribution but app fees, necessarily limiting the comparison to fee-based apps
`
`which does not account for alternative monetization models like Apple uses.
`
`. Regarding the 70% figure, that is a mismatch comparison of cumulative
`
`accused devices over six years where devices are replaced every two-years, to the U.S.
`
`population at any given time.
`
`Apple’s remaining criticisms
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 15995
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 15995
`
`
`
`.
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 15996
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`. Ultimately, Apple's criticisms are argument best left to cross-
`
`examination at trial, and are not a basis on which to exclude Mr. Ratliff’s testimony.
`
`C. Mr. Ratliff’s 20% “Insurance Adjustment” is Supported and
`Reasonable
`
`
`
`Apple further criticizes Mr. Ratliff’s application of an insurance adjustment. Mr. Ratliff
`
`included this in his analysis to account for the fact device users benefit from having the ability to
`
`find their device whether or not they actively use that feature. Apple misconstrues Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`analysis, arguing that he arbitrarily selected an average price for an insurance plan that would fill
`
`that need but fails to specify the portion of the price used to insure for lost or stolen phones, as
`
`opposed to other reasons consumers may buy insurance.
`
`
`
`.
`
`-
`
` Based on third-party apps combining these
`
`functions in a single offering, the market value fee would be applicable to either type of usage
`
`and would apply to at least the 65% that used FMP.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 15997
`
`
`
`Apple’s own
`
`.
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
` This benefit is clearly related to patented features though through their
`
`availability and initial activation (which, as previously discussed, is accused of infringement), as
`
`opposed to their regular or active usage. Whether users were inclined or not to purchase
`
`insurance, they still received the benefit.
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Mr. Ratliff’s Reasonable Royalty Analysis is Not Based on the
`EMVR
`
`
`
`Apple argues that Mr. Ratliff’s opinions related to the total profits associated with the
`
`accused Apple devices or “ecosystem” should be excluded as an improper invocation of the
`
`entire market value rule ("EMVR"). Dkt. 231 at 14-15. This is a straw man argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 15998
`
`. Mr. Ratliff’s opinion concerning the
`
`amount of the reasonable royalty and its portion of Apple’s estimated profits on the Accused
`
`Apps is an opinion limited to the SSPPU and not part of an EMVR analysis. Apple’s argument
`
`here with respect to the EMVR should be rejected as Mr. Ratliff clearly bases his royalty
`
`analysis on factors such as the price of comparable apps for which users pay, the number of
`
`activations, and other relevant factors, not on Apple’s sales revenues.
`
`
`
`Apple also suggests that Mr. Ratliff’s opinions relating to third-party licenses should be
`
`excluded, and erroneously asserts that Mr. Ratliff relies upon the licenses to suggest a royalty
`
`rate as a percentage of “overall profit.” In fact,
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, Apple’s motion to exclude certain damages opinions of
`
`Alan Ratliff should be denied in its entirety.
`
`
`Dated: December 31, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Lawrence C. Drucker
`NY Bar No. 2303089
`Email: ldrucker@brownrudnick.com
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 15999
`
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra C. Messing
`NY Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`Shahar Harel
`NY Bar No. 4573192
`Email: sharel@brownrudnick.com
`John A. Rubino
`NY Bar No. 5020797
`Email: jrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`Daniel J. Shea, Jr.
`NY Bar No. 5430558
`Email: dshea@brownrudnick.com
`Justine Minseon Park
`NY Bar No. 5604483
`Email: apark@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 903-923-9000
`Facsimile: 903-923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 16000
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal
`
`pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 254 Filed 01/02/19 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 16001
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on December 31, 2018, all counsel of record who
`
`are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document
`
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`