Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 9620
`
`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. ALAN RATLIFF
`RELATING TO DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 9621
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`Mr. Ratliff Ignores
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
` is Unreliable ....................... 4
`
`
`. ...................................................... 4
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
` Is Unsupported ....................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`Is Arbitrary And Unreliable .......................... 7
`
` Is Arbitrary And Unsupported ............. 8
`
` Are
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`Not Connected to This Case. ................................................................................ 10
`
`The Entire Market Value Rule Does Not Permit Calculation Of Damages
`As A Percentage of LGEKR’s Device-Level Profits ............................................ 12
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 9622
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, Dkt. 254 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2019) ...................................................10
`
`Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Advance Publ’ns, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-cv-00229-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 586 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2014) ..........................................10
`
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:13-CV-01015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2536962 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ......................12
`
`BMC Software, Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-903-JRG, 2016 WL 379620 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2016) ......................................10
`
`Chrimar Holding Co. v. ALE USA, Inc.,
`732 F. App’x 876 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (unpublished) ...................................................................10
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...............................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................4
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................4, 7
`
`Freeny v. Murphy Oil Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-791-RSP, Dkt. 151 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2015) ......................................................10
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................9, 12, 13
`
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2015 WL 349197 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) ...........................................7
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................6
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 9623
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd.,
`No. 6:11-cv-622, 2014 WL 12465449 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2014) ..............................................9
`
`Salazar v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:16-cv-01096-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 226 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2018) ........................................10
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`Satutes and Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid.
`702......................................................................................................................................3, 8, 9
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 9624
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The damages expert for Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS”), Alan
`
`Ratliff, asserts that AGIS is entitled to
`
`in damages from LG Electronics Inc.
`
`(“LGEKR”) for alleged infringement that is carried out by software applications supplied by a
`
`non-party, Google, some of which are pre-installed on LG phones. Neither LGEKR nor the
`
`ultimate consumers of LG mobile devices pay anything for the Accused Applications supplied
`
`by Google. And the record is devoid of any evidence of the incremental value attributable to the
`
`Accused Applications, let alone the narrow, specific functions within those applications accused
`
`of infringement by AGIS. Nonetheless, Mr. Ratliff concludes that
`
`.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`approach suffers from several fatal flaws. For instance, Mr.
`
`Ratliff applies
`
`
`
`, and makes no effort to assess an applicable royalty rate to the
`
`Google applications (“Accused Applications”) that actually are accused of carrying out the
`
`alleged infringement. Mr. Ratliff also provides no evidentiary support for
`
`. Instead, he relies on apples-to-oranges
`
` Mr. Ratliff fails even to attempt to
`
`.
`
`Starting from a faulty premise, Mr. Ratliff compounds his errors through
`
`. Mr. Ratliff first posits
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 9625
`
`Even a cursory review of Mr. Ratliff’s report reveals that he has no basis for this assertion, and
`
`
`
`again has failed to base his opinions on
`
`Among other things, Mr. Ratliff bases his
`
`. Thus, his
`
`even attempt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Ratliff does not
`
`
`
`
`
` and has no basis
`
`. Indeed, common sense suggests otherwise, yet that
`
`also is ignored by Mr. Ratliff.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
` is similarly unfounded, not least because
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Next, Mr. Ratliff proclaims
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 9626
`
` Mr. Ratliff likewise does not explain
`
`
`
`Finally, Mr. Ratliff arbitrarily assigns a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Again, Mr.
`
`Ratliff’s assumptions are absurd and unreliable. There is no
`
` between LG and
`
`Google for the Accused Applications because Google licenses them on a royalty-free basis, and
`
`LG derives no revenue specific to the Accused Applications.
`
`The cumulative effect of Mr. Ratliff’s flawed starting point compounded by
`
`
`
`is an opinion that is so flawed it fails the Daubert test for admissibility
`
`and must be excluded in its entirety.
`
`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. Under Rule 702,
`
`the district court must make a gatekeeping determination as to whether an proffered expert’s
`
`opinions satisfy these 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).
`
`In patent cases, “[w]hen the accused technology does not make up the whole of the
`
`accused product, apportionment is required.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299,
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 9627
`
`1309 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “‘[T]he ultimate combination of royalty base and royalty rate must reflect
`
`the value attributable to the infringing features of the product, and no more.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In other words, the
`
`“ultimate reasonable royalty award must be based on the incremental value that the patented
`
`invention adds to the end product.” Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1226.
`
`A.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`Mr. Ratliff purports
`
`is Unreliable
`
`
`
` However, this method
`
`does not reliably apply basic economics or even estimate the value of the Accused Applications
`
`themselves. Google provides the Accused Applications that run on the Accused Devices to
`
`LGEKR on a royalty-free basis, and consumers of Accused Devices in the United States are not
`
`charged separate fees for inclusion or use of the Accused Applications on those devices. Mr.
`
`Ratliff’s
`
`economic reality.
`
`1.
`
`Mr. Ratliff Ignores
`
`.
`
` defies
`
`
`
`
`
`It is axiomatic that as a product’s price increases, demand decreases. Mr. Ratliff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` However, as Mr. Ratliff notes,
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9628
`
`This estimate is unfounded.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The deployment and usage of the Accused Applications would be even lower if users faced the
`
`prospect of a monthly subscription fee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` His complete disregard for basic economic principles renders his damages model
`
`fundamentally flawed and unreliable. See Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods.
`
`Grp., LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (requiring damages experts to support opinions
`
`with “sound economic reasoning”).
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
` Is Unsupported
`
`Similarly, Mr. Ratliff
`
`. Indeed, Mr. Ratliff’s analysis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
` Instead, Mr. Ratliff only focuses on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 9629
`
`account of these differences, and their relative values and economic contributions, further
`
`renders his analysis unsupported and unreliable.
`
` Mr. Ratliff’s failure to take
`
`several problems with this. First, Mr. Ratliff
`
`. Second, and relatedly,
`
`
`
` There are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`analysis
`
` Thus, Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (recognizing that the court must “carefully tie proof of damages to the claimed invention’s
`
`footprint in the market place”).
`
`
`
`
`
` See Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1309.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 9630
`
`B.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`Mr. Ratliff
`
` Is Arbitrary And Unreliable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This, too, is improper. See, e.g., Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2015 WL
`
`349197, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) (finding that damages expert’s royalty figure must be
`
`apportioned to the usage of the accused features themselves).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 9631
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`Mr. Ratliff
`
`Is Arbitrary And Unsupported
`
`napkin guesstimate is arbitrary because
`
` This back-of-the-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`short of Rule 702’s requirements.
`
` His opinions therefore again fall
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The
`
`
`
` are multiple
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusory say-so of a damages expert
`
`2
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 9632
`
`hearsay and independently inadmissible. They certainly cannot support a reasoned economic
`
`determination of
`
`.
`
`In ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd., a proffered damages expert attributed 70% of profits
`
`of an accused product to the patents-in-suit, which apportionment the expert based on his
`
`conversations with the named inventors as well as developers of an invention that practiced the
`
`patents-in-suit. No. 6:11-cv-622, 2014 WL 12465449, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2014). The court
`
`excluded this testimony, noting the lack of “objective or even substantial qualitative analysis to
`
`demonstrate why 70% is the proper apportionment . . . .” Id. Here, Mr. Ratliff
`
`opinion lacks any kind of objective or qualitative analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, his
`
`
`
`
`
` See 2014 WL 12465449, at *3; see also
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67-69 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discrediting
`
`apportionment that “appear[ed] to have been plucked out of thin air based on vague qualitative
`
`notions of the relative importance of the [patented] technology.”).3
`
`3 In opposing Apple’s motion to exclude Mr. Ratliff’s technological apportionment, AGIS has
`cited various non-precedential decisions, approving the general practice of relying on other
`experts or positing objective apportionment methodologies, and claimed that Mr. Ratliff’s
`approach was consistent with such cases. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA
`Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, Dkt. 254, at 4-7 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2019). These cases do not help
`AGIS, as they either address different questions, or the expert employed objective analysis to
`reach an apportionment, which methodological rigor is entirely lacking from Mr. Ratliff’s report.
`See Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Advance Publ’ns, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00229-JRG-RSP, Dkt.
`586, at *5 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2014) (noting generally that damages expert can rely on technical
`expert, where done reliably and in connection to the facts of the case); Freeny v. Murphy Oil
`Corp., No. 2:13-cv-791-RSP, Dkt. 151, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2015) (“Regarding the
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 9633
`
`D.
`
`Mr. Ratliff’s
`Not Connected to This Case.
`
`Mr. Ratliff also purports
`
` Are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See BMC
`
`Software, Inc. v. ServiceNow, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-903-JRG, 2016 WL 379620, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Feb. 1, 2016) (striking expert’s opinion where his methodology was not generally accepted or
`
`based on reliable principles and methods, but rather was based on his own personal experience).
`
`Mr. Ratliff also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`attribution of profits and the delineation between accused versus non-accused features, Plaintiffs
`have adequately shown that Mr. Hoeberlein factored such considerations into his analysis that
`ultimately resulted in his conclusion that a 6% royalty is an appropriate rate.”); Salazar v. HTC
`Corp., No. 2:16-cv-01096-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 226, at *2-4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2018) (expert
`considered value of patented and non-patented features and considered facts, not subjective
`opinions, provided by technical expert); Chrimar Holding Co. v. ALE USA, Inc., 732 F. App’x
`876, 887-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (expert calculated premium by analyzing and
`comparing products that did and did not practice patented technology).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 9634
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Ratliff does not reconcile any of these discrepancies that contradict
`
`his methodology, and evidently
`
` This renders Mr. Ratliff’s opinions concerning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`excludable, since an expert’s theories must be tied specifically to “the facts of the case.” Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Compounding matters further, Mr. Ratliff hypothesizes
`
`
`
` and Google licenses the Android OS and Accused Apps to LGEKR on a
`
`royalty-free basis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 9635
`
`Using this artificial construct, Mr. Ratliff’s
`
`Ratliff fails to show
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
` when in the real
`
`world, Google apparently keeps 100% of profits (if any) that inure to it from its distribution of
`
`the Android OS and Accused Applications. See, e.g., Uniloc, 632 F.3d at 1315; Biscotti Inc. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2536962, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 18,
`
`2017) (not allowing expert to testify about a 40/60 profit split, until she could show that such a
`
`rate was sufficiently tied to the facts of the case). For this reason, the testimony is subject to
`
`exclusion.
`
`E.
`
`The Entire Market Value Rule Does Not Permit Calculation Of Damages As
`A Percentage of LGEKR’s Device-Level Profits
`
`Damages can be presented as a percentage of revenues or profits of an entire product only
`
`“[i]f it can be shown that the patented feature drives the demand for an entire multi-component
`
`product . . . .” LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 67. Here, Mr. Ratliff
`
`
`
`AGIS cannot dispute that it has offered no evidence that the
`
`allegedly patented features contained within the Accused Applications—which are themselves a
`
`tiny subset of the functionality offered within the Accused Devices—in any way drives demand
`
`for the Accused Devices themselves. Mr. Ratliff
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 9636
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` should be excluded as an improper invocation of the entire market value rule.
`
`LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 68.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, LGEKR respectfully requests that this Court exclude Mr.
`
`Ratliff’s opinions regarding
`
`
`
`. Because
`
` is essential to Mr.
`
`Ratliff’s damages calculations, these analytical shortcomings render Mr. Ratliff’s entire damages
`
`calculation flawed and inadmissible. His damages opinion should therefore be excluded in its
`
`entirety.
`
`Dated: January 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Michael Berta
`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
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 9637
`
`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.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 9638
`
`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/ Michael Berta
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 9639
`
`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/ Michael Berta
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 134 Filed 01/29/19 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 9640
`
`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. Alan Ratliff Relating to Damages.
`
`/s/ Michael Berta
`
`-17-
`
`