Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 9315
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS
`OF W. CHRISTOPHER BAKEWELL RELATING TO DAMAGES
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 9316
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant HTC Corporation’s (“HTC”) damages expert, W. Christopher Bakewell,
`
`asserts that a reasonable royalty to compensate Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`(“AGIS”) for HTC’s alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit1 is
`
` Mr. Bakewell’s conclusion rests largely on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.2 In short, Mr. Bakewell
`
`has failed to demonstrate sufficient economic comparability between these agreements and the
`
`hypothetical negotiation here. While there are numerous flaws in Mr. Bakewell’s analysis, his
`
`almost total reliance on these agreements renders his damages conclusions unreliable and
`
`properly excluded in their entirety. In the alternative, those portions of Mr. Bakewell’s report
`
`that address or rely on these agreements should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The “patents-in-suit” are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213, 970 (the “’970 Patent”); 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”);
`9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); and 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 9317
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Bakewell’s analysis is fatally flawed because he does not establish that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 9318
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Applicable Standards
`
`
`
`Admissibility of expert testimony is a question of law governed by Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 702. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Rule 702
`
`provides that an expert witness may offer opinion testimony if (a) the expert’s scientific,
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 9319
`
`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 fact of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Kumho
`
`Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999); Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1372-74 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding expert testimony
`
`unreliable because of “speculative leaps”). However, the Court must determine that an expert’s
`
`testimony “both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert at
`
`594, 597. “The relevance prong [of Daubert] requires the proponent [of the expert testimony] to
`
`demonstrate that the expert’s ‘reasoning or methodology can be properly applied to the facts in
`
`issue.’” Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d 452, 459 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Curtis v. M & S
`
`Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 668 (5th Cir. 1999)). “The reliability prong [of Daubert]
`
`mandates that expert opinion ‘be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and . . . be
`
`more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief.’” Johnson, 685 F.3d at 459 (quoting
`
`Curtis, 174 F.3d at 668).
`
`
`
`While the Federal Circuit has recognized the relevance of settlement agreements to prove
`
`the amount of a reasonable royalty, these licenses are not admitted without scrutiny. Res-Q-
`
`Net.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 872 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that because litigation
`
`settlement agreements are likely influenced to some degree by litigation, the hypothetical
`
`negotiation can be skewed); see LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 79
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The propriety of using prior settlement agreements to prove the amount of a
`
`reasonable royalty is questionable.”). Accordingly, “the Court assesses litigation licenses on a
`
`case-by-case basis in determining their admissibility.” ReedHycalog, UK, Ltd. v. Diamond
`
`Innovations Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 543, 547 (E.D. Tex. 2010).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 9320
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that “alleging loose or vague comparability between
`
`different technologies or licenses does not suffice.” LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 77. Where an
`
`expert relies on comparable licenses that differ in some respects from the hypothetical
`
`agreement, he must “account for the ‘technological and economic differences’ between them.”
`
`See Wordtech Sys. v. Integrated Networks Sol’ns, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`“Testimony relying on licenses must account for such distinguishing facts when invoking them
`
`to value the patented invention.” ResQNet, 594 F.3d at 869 (holding that it is improper to rely on
`
`a license with no relationship to the claimed invention).
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This language
`
`alone renders his opinions unreliable and is a basis on which to exclude them.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 9321
`
`—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This failure alone is sufficient grounds to exclude at
`
`least portions of Mr. Bakewell’s opinion. See Realtime Data v. Echostar Corp. et al. 6:17-CV-
`
`00084-RWS-JDL, Dkt. 271 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2018) (in excluding lump sum settlement
`
`license, the Court concluded that “the final agreement reached lacks any reference to the. . .
`
`royalty base (if any at all) used to arrive at the lump-sum payment); Realtime Data v. Echostar et
`
`al., 6:17-CV-00084-RWS-JDL, Dkt. 272 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2018) (identifying relevant facts
`
`and data necessary to compare a lump sum license including accused revenues, apportionment
`
`factors, and royalty rates that the lump-sum payment was based upon).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`-
`
`-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 9322
`
`B.
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkts. 271 and 272.
`
` See Realtime Data, 6:17-CV-00084-RWS-JDL,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`
`
`Royalty figures that fail to account for such differences are unreliable. See Flexuspine
`
`Inc. v. Globus Medical Inc., 6:15-cv-00201-JRG-KNM, 2016 WL 9276023, at *5 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Jul. 6, 2016); see also Eidos Display LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., 6:11-CV-00201-JRG, 2017
`
`WL 1322550, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2017) (holding that the resolution of active litigation was
`
`a circumstance that “diminish[ed] the relevance of the AUO settlement agreement to the
`
`hypothetical negotiation”); ART+COM Innovation Pool GmbH v. Google Inc., 155 F. Supp. 3d
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9323
`
`489, 512 (D. Del. 2016) (“Without adequately accounting for the differences in economic
`
`circumstances between the past settlement licenses and the hypothetical negotiation, the license
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`agreements cannot be considered economically comparable.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court exclude
`
`
`
`
`
`excluded in their entirety, but at minimum as to those agreements.
`
` Mr. Bakewell’s damages opinions should therefore be
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 9324
`
`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
`Timothy J. Rousseau
`NY Bar No. 4698742
`Email: trousseau@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 State 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
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 9325
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I certify that on January 25, 2019, lead and local counsel for AGIS (Alfred R. Fabricant,
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, and Jennifer Truelove) and for HTC (Matthew Bernstein, Miguel J.
`
`Bombach, and Eric Findlay) conferred via telephone in compliance with L.R. CV-7(h-i)
`
`regarding the issues presented in the foregoing Motion. The Parties still were unable to resolve
`
`the issues and are at an impasse regarding the relief sought. The Court assistance is thus
`
`necessary. HTC opposes this Motion.
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 9326
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 130 Filed 01/29/19 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 9327
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on January 25, 2019, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`