Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 9294
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-CV-515-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, et al.
`
`Defendant.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS OF MR. JOSEPH C.
`McALEXANDER, III RELATING TO INFRINGEMENT
`
`US:164262129v5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 9295
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Bare-Bones Opinions Concerning
`Are Conclusory and Unsupported by Any Facts or Data. ................... 2
`
`Mr. McAlexander Improperly Offers Opinion Testimony on
`
`
`. ................... 6
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 9296
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................2, 3, 5
`
`Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`831 F. Supp. 2d 837 (D. Del. 2011) ...........................................................................................3
`
`AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols.,
`479 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................2
`
`Cybiotronics, Ltd. v. Golden Source Elecs. Ltd.,
`130 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2001) .....................................................................................8
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.,
`No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3475688 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2016) .................................2
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`558 F. App’x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished) .....................................................................6
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................5
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(a) ......................................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Evid.
`403..........................................................................................................................................7, 9
`702......................................................................................................................................1, 5, 6
`702(a) .........................................................................................................................................8
`702(b) .........................................................................................................................................8
`702(c) .........................................................................................................................................8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 9297
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS”) technical expert, Joseph C.
`
`McAlexander, III, has offered conclusory testimony concerning
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. McAlexander’s opinions in this regard fail to meet the admissibility standards
`
`of the Federal Rules of Evidence and should be excluded. Mr. McAlexander also offers
`
`improper “expert” testimony on a matter on which he is not qualified to testify, on which he did
`
`not examine sufficient facts and data, and on which he did not apply reliable principles and
`
`methods:
`
` This
`
`testimony should also be excluded under Rule 702.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`An expert witness may provide opinion testimony only 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 as to whether a particular expert’s
`
`proposed testimony satisfies the rule’s requirements. 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).
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 9298
`
`A.
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Bare-Bones Opinions Concerning
`Are Conclusory and Unsupported by Any Facts or Data.
`
`
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s opinions concerning
`
`
`
`are subject to exclusion as conclusory and unsupported.1 To prevail under a doctrine of
`
`equivalents theory, AGIS is required to provide “particularized testimony and linking argument
`
`as to the ‘insubstantiality of the differences’ between the claimed invention and the accused
`
`device, or with respect to the ‘function, way, result test.’” See AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche
`
`Sols., 479 F.3d 1320, 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Conclusory expert opinions unsupported
`
`by “facts or data” and based on no discernable “principles and methods” are not admissible. See
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., No. 2:14-cv-33-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3475688,
`
`at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2016) (striking plaintiff’s expert’s opinions regarding doctrine of
`
`equivalents). Broad and scant discussions of law are similarly not sufficient. See, e.g., Akzo
`
`Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Mr. McAlexander first asserts that,
`
` He then asserts:
`
`1 Mr. McAlexander does not offer
`.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 9299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`report fails entirely to provide particularized testimony supported by facts or data as to
`
`
`
`that the law deems inadmissible. Mr. McAlexander’s
`
` See, e.g., Akzo Nobel Coatings, 811 F.3d at
`
`1343; see also Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., 831 F. Supp. 2d 837, 844-45 (D. Del.
`
`2011).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 9300
`Case 2:17-cv-00514—JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 9300
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 9301
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Under controlling authority, these assertions are not admissible. In Akzo Nobel Coatings,
`
`the plaintiff’s expert provided
`
`, stating for example
`
`
`
`that “[accused infringers’ piping and heat process] perform the same
`
`function (maintain the pressure) and achieve the same result (maintaining sufficient pressure to
`
`prevent boiling of the aqueous medium) in substantially the same way (by collecting the
`
`dispersed material in a contained volume) as the vessel used by the inventors.” 811 F.3d at 1343.
`
`The Federal Circuit found that this discussion was too broad and scant. Id. (citing Telemac
`
`Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Broad conclusory
`
`statements offered by [plaintiff’s] expert are not evidence and are not sufficient to establish a
`
`genuine issue of material fact.”)). Despite the parenthetical explanations offered, the expert had
`
`failed to articulate how the accused process operates in substantially the same way, and failed
`
`also to articulate how the differences between the two processes are insubstantial. Id. Thus, the
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents
`
`and held that an expert’s conclusory assertions
`
`were inadequate
`
`to give rise to a genuine issue of fact. A fortiori, if such opinion testimony are not evidence and
`
`cannot give rise to an issue of fact, the testimony also fails Rule 702’s admissibility standard. As
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9302
`
`shown above, Mr. McAlexander’s assertions about
`
` suffer the same
`
`flaws. They are unsupported by facts or data or proper analysis, and do not articulate
`
`
`
` They should therefore be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
` these, too, are far too
`
`conclusory to be admissible. See, e.g., Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 558 F. App’x 998,
`
`1000 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (upholding finding that expert’s report failed to execute
`
`proper doctrine of equivalents analysis where it relied on barebones statements, e.g., that “[t]he
`
`difference would not be substantial at all”). Thus, Mr. McAlexander’s opinions concerning
`
`
`
` should be excluded.
`
`B.
`
`Mr. McAlexander Improperly Offers Opinion Testimony on
`
`
`
`
`
`Through Mr. McAlexander, AGIS would also offer improper and unsupported opinion
`
`testimony concerning
`
`
`
`
`
`is an ultimate legal conclusion, and not a matter on which Mr. McAlexander, as a
`
`proffered technical expert, has any relevant knowledge or training. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)
`
`(providing that for an expert to testify concerning a matter, expert must possess “scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the
`
`evidence or to determine a fact in issue”); 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (providing that whoever “sells” or
`
`“imports into the United States any patented invention during the during the term of the patent
`
`therefor, infringes the patent”). Mr. McAlexander has no basis to opine as to
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 9303
`
` As a result, Mr. McAlexander’s testimony as to
`
`
`
`would be entirely unsupported
`
`and unduly prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`In his expert report, Mr. McAlexander asserts in a conclusory fashion that
`
`
`
` He first states:
`
` Mr. McAlexander evidently bases his conclusion concerning
`
` Mr. McAlexander provides
`
`Mr. McAlexander appears to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Instead,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nothing in Mr. McAlexander’s report or background indicates that he has experience
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 9304
`
`testimony is inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a) (expert must have “scientific, technical, or
`
` On this basis alone, his
`
`other specialized knowledge” relevant to the testimony). Moreover,
`
`conclusion that
`
` Rather,
`
` As such,
`
` does not support Mr. McAlexander’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` for which additional reason the testimony should be excluded. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`702(b) (expert testimony must be “based on sufficient facts or data”); see Cybiotronics, Ltd. v.
`
`Golden Source Elecs. Ltd., 130 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (“The Court is also
`
`wholly unpersuaded by Plaintiff's argument that because Smoothline is the ‘exporter from’ Hong
`
`Kong, it must also be the ‘importer into’ the United States. . . . This is contrary to logic; the very
`
`division between the two words suggests division of roles.”) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Additionally, Mr. McAlexander’s act of
`
`jumping to unsupported legal conclusions ignores copious evidence that
`
` and
`
`
`
`.2 Mr. McAlexander’s
`
`failure to engage this evidence is an independent basis to exclude his testimony. See Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 702(b). Finally, Mr. McAlexander fails to show what principles or methods—if any—he
`
`applied in concluding that
`
`.
`
`See Fed. R. Evid. 702(c) (providing that admissible expert testimony must be “the product of
`
`reliable principles and methods”). In sum, Mr. McAlexander’s proffered testimony concerning
`
`amounts to unsupported speculation concerning the meaning of
`
`
`
`2 Details of
`
`
`—are not in dispute, as set forth in greater detail in
`LGEKR’s Motion For Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 9305
`
` and would be unduly prejudicial to LGEKR in positing baseless “expert” testimony
`
`concerning an ultimate issue in the case. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, LGEKR respectfully requests that the Court exclude the
`
`portions of Mr. McAlexander’s opinions described above.
`
`Dated: January 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ James Blackburn
`J. Mark Mann (SBN: 12926150)
`G. Blake Thompson (SBN: 24042033)
`MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: (903) 657-8540
`mark@themannfirm.com
`blake@themannfirm.com
`
`Michael A. Berta
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Tel: (415) 471-3277
`Michael.Berta@arnoldporter.com
`
`James S. Blackburn
`Nicholas H. Lee
`Justin J. Chi
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: (213) 243-4156
`James.Blackburn@arnoldporter.com
`Nicholas.Lee@arnoldporter.com
`Justin.Chi@arnoldporter.com
`
`Bonnie Phan
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-3807
`Tel: (650) 319-4500
`Bonnie.Phan@arnoldporter.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics Inc.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 9306
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal
`
`pursuant to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`/s/ James Blackburn
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 9307
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on January 25, 2019.
`
`/s/ James Blackburn
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 129 Filed 01/29/19 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 9308
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to L.R. CV-7(i), the undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Defendant
`
`LGEKR and counsel for Plaintiff AGIS met and conferred by telephone on January 24, 2019,
`
`and have complied with L.R. CV-7(h). Plaintiff opposes LGEKR’s Daubert Motion to Exclude
`
`the Opinions of Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander, III Relating to Infringement.
`
`/s/ James Blackburn
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`