Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 14625
`
`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
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, et al.
`
`Defendant.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC’S DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS OF W. CHRISTOPHER
`BAKEWELL RELATING TO DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 14626
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`.................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Mr. Bakewell Has Established
`
`.............................. 4
`
`
` ............................................................. 8
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 14627
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2019) .................................................................6, 7
`
`ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc.,
`155 F. Supp. 3d 489 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................................12, 13
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.,
`782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................2
`
`Eidos Display LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp.,
`No. 6:11-CV-00201-JRG, 2017 WL 1322550 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2017) ........................11, 12
`
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`No. 2:15-CV-00037-RWS-RSP, 2017 WL 2651618 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2017) ......................3
`
`Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med. Inc.,
`6:15-cv-201-JRG-KNM, 2016 WL 9276023 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2016) ...................................11
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.,
`No. 2:14-cv-33-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 122967 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2016) ....................................6
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................................5
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 429 (2017) ....................................2, 4
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp. et al.,
`No. 6:17-CV-00084-JDL, 2018 WL 6266301 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2018) ......................2, 9, 10
`
`Realtime Data v. EchoStar
`Corp. Dkt. 271 .........................................................................................................................10
`
`Realtime Data v. EchoStar
`Corp. Dkt. 272 .........................................................................................................................10
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................2
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................1, 4, 7
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 14628
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................13
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-248-JRG, 2015 WL 6694116 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2015)......................................6
`
`TransCore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp.,
`563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 14629
`
`Defendant LG Electronics Inc. (“LGEKR”) hereby opposes Plaintiff AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC’s (“AGIS”) Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of W. Christopher
`
`Bakewell Relating to Damages (the “Motion”). For the reasons set forth below, AGIS’s Motion
`
`should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS moves to strike the opinions of LGEKR’s damages expert, W. Christopher
`
`Bakewell, because he bases his opinions, in part, on
`
`
`
`. AGIS’s Motion gives the impression that Mr. Bakewell’s
`
`expert report on damages is based on
`
`Mr. Bakewell’s discussion of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. AGIS’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions
`
`of W. Christopher Bakewell Relating to Damages amounts to no more than a disagreement over
`
`how a piece of evidence in this case should be weighed. AGIS provides no basis to doubt the
`
`soundness of Mr. Bakewell’s economic methodology. AGIS presents the Court with fragments
`
`of Mr. Bakewell’s report, ignores the extensive and well-reasoned analysis he provided, and
`
`launches attacks that go to the weight of Mr. Bakewell’s opinions and are subjects for cross-
`
`examination, not reasons for exclusion.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Mr. Bakewell considers
`
`
`
`
`
` The Federal Circuit holds that in some circumstances, licenses
`
`settling litigation can be the best evidence of a reasonable royalty. See ResQNet.com, Inc. v.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 14630
`
`Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 870–72 (Fed. Cir. 2010). There is “no per se ban on the use of
`
`settlements to establish a reasonable royalty. [Citations.] Indeed, settlement agreements often
`
`may be introduced as comparable licenses, so long as technical and economic comparability is
`
`established.” Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp. et al., No. 6:17-CV-00084-JDL, 2018 WL
`
`6266301, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2018) (citing Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`
`849 F.3d 1360, 1368–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 429 (2017); AstraZeneca AB v.
`
`Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Indeed, settlements can be even more on-
`
`point to a hypothetical license than other agreements. As the Federal Circuit explains:
`
`a settlement involving the patented technology can be probative of
`the technology’s value if that value was at issue in the earlier case.
`The reason is simple: such a settlement can reflect the assessment
`by interested and adversarial parties of the range of plausible
`litigation outcomes on that very issue of valuation. And given the
`necessary premise that discovery and adversarial processes tend to
`move a legal inquiry toward improved answers, the parties’
`agreement seems especially probative if reached after the litigation
`was far enough along that the issue was already well explored and
`well tested.
`
`Prism Techs., 849 F.3d at 1369 (citing AstraZeneca, 782 F.3d at 1336–67).
`
`AGIS cannot dispute this controlling authority, and instead picks at the edges of
`
`Mr. Bakewell’s discussion of
`
`, seeking to raise various distinctions
`
`devoid of legal significance. For instance, AGIS asserts that Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`
`
` But, virtually all settlements in patent litigation resolve
`
`disputes over validity and infringement, and AGIS cites no case holding that express recitation of
`
`this reality is a prerequisite to offering a comparability opinion. And, Mr. Bakewell did
`
`.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 14631
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This suffices to ground his analysis of the underlying litigation in reliable
`
`economic methods. That AGIS disagrees with his analysis is a matter for the trier of fact to
`
`weigh. See Elbit Sys. Land & C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-00037-RWS-
`
`RSP, 2017 WL 2651618, at *18 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2017) (“Mr. Bakewell’s economic analysis
`
`is sufficiently detailed to avoid exclusion under Daubert. . . . As for the Caltech license, the real
`
`dispute is whether the license is sufficiently comparable, and thus the weight of Mr. Bakewell’s
`
`testimony is at issue, at least when the Court is satisfied that the allegedly comparable license
`
`bears a sufficient technological relationship to the patented technology, as is the case here.”),
`
`adopting report and recommendation, 2017 WL 4693971, at *4, 6 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2017).
`
`
`
`
`
` This argument elevates form over substance. See TransCore, LP v.
`
`Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The real question,
`
`then, is not whether an agreement is framed in terms of a ‘covenant not to sue’ or a ‘license.’
`
`That difference is only one of form, not substance—both are properly viewed as
`
`‘authorizations.’”). As Mr. Bakewell explained,
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 14632
`
`
`
` From a commercial perspective,
`
` is the same as a license because
`
`“a patentee, by license or otherwise, cannot convey an affirmative right to practice a patented
`
`invention by way of making, using, selling, etc.; the patentee can only convey a freedom from
`
`suit.” See TransCore, 563 F.3d at 1275–76. The Federal Circuit has “frequently recognized that
`
`a (non-exclusive) license to practice a patent is in substance nothing but a covenant not to sue:
`
`what such a license is, at its core, is an elimination of the potential for litigation.” Prism, 849
`
`F.3d at 1370 (citing TransCore, 563 F.3d at 1275–76).
`
`In sum, AGIS’s attack on
`
` is a misplaced challenge
`
`to the weight of Mr. Bakewell’s analysis, not its admissibility.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`A central premise of AGIS’s Motion is that Mr. Bakewell’s entire analysis is suspect
`
`because he relied
`
`AGIS ignores the substance of Mr. Bakewell’s analysis
`
`. Here,
`
`
`
`
`
`and misstates the law, positing a standard that would deem
`
`virtually any settlement agreement inadmissible. To the contrary, the cases cited by AGIS fully
`
`support the admissibility of Mr. Bakewell’s opinions as based on
`
`.
`
`AGIS suggests that the Federal Circuit has held that litigation can skew a hypothetical
`
`negotiation, making it improper to rely on a license with no relationship to the claimed invention.
`
`(Motion at 4 (citing ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 872 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).) In
`
`ResQNet, however, the Federal Circuit observed that “the most reliable license” in that case
`
`“arose out of litigation,” and it was the other licenses that had not resulted from litigation that
`
`were improper to rely upon because they had no relationship to the patents in suit or the claimed
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 14633
`
`technology. See 594 F.3d at 871–72. AGIS also quotes from the LaserDynamics decision for
`
`the proposition that “[t]he propriety of using prior settlement agreements to prove the amount of
`
`a reasonable royalty is questionable.” (Motion at 4 (citing LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta
`
`Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 77 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).) In that case, the Federal Circuit actually
`
`pointed to its prior decision in ResQNet to confirm that it permits reliance on settlement
`
`agreements to establish reasonable royalty damages. LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 77. The
`
`Federal Circuit contrasted a reliable settlement agreement in ResQNet, which “stood apart from
`
`all other licenses in the record as being uniquely relevant and reliable.” Id. at 78. In contrast, the
`
`settlement in LaserDynamics was less reliable because (1) it was executed on the eve of trial
`
`after the settling party had been repeatedly sanctioned by the district court; (2) its lump sum
`
`license fee was six times larger than the next highest amount paid to license the patent-in-suit,
`
`and (3) it did not reflect the changing technological and financial landscape in the market. Id. at
`
`77–78.
`
`Here, Mr. Bakewell explained
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` the accusations here that LGEKR infringes the patents-in-suit by making, using,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 14634
`
`selling, and offering for sale mobile devices that run location-tracking applications (see generally
`
`D.I. 1).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See, e.g., TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., No.
`
`2:11-CV-248-JRG, 2015 WL 6694116, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2015) (finding that the damages
`
`expert was entitled to rely upon the technical expert’s technical comparability analysis when
`
`constructing his damages model); Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., No. 2:14-cv-
`
`33-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 122967, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2016) (concluding that the damages
`
`expert’s testimony was supported by sufficient evidence of comparability to render it admissible
`
`under Daubert where the damages expert relied on the opinion of the technical expert to
`
`determine that the technology licensed under an agreement was technically and economically
`
`comparable to the technology at issue in the case). Indeed, AGIS itself has argued that “it is
`
`normal and acceptable for a damages expert to rely upon a technical expert in connection with
`
`comparable license and apportionment analyses.” (Plaintiff AGIS Software Dev. LLC’s
`
`Opposition to Apple Inc.’s Daubert Motion to Exclude The Opinions of Mr. Alan Ratliff
`
`Relating to Damages, at 4 (Dkt. No. 254), AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`
`No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2019) (citing cases).)
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 14635
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is thorough and grounded in reliable methods of economic
`
`analysis, meeting the admissibility standard of Rule 702. Notably, when Apple moved in part to
`
`strike Mr. Ratliff’s reliance on these same three licenses for lacking economic comparability,
`
`AGIS insisted that this went at most to the weight of Mr. Ratliff’s opinions, a matter Apple could
`
`address through cross-examination and contrary presentation of evidence. (Plaintiff AGIS
`
`Software Dev. LLC’s Opposition to Apple Inc.’s Daubert Motion to Exclude The Opinions of
`
`Mr. Alan Ratliff Relating to Damages at 11, (Dkt. No. 254), AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei
`
`Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2019).) AGIS is therefore speaking
`
`out of both sides of its mouth in arguing for the opposite principle here.
`
`Mr. Bakewell’s discussion of
`
` is thorough, well grounded in
`
`economic analysis, and closely tied to the facts of this case and
`
`these reasons, Mr. Bakewell was permitted to rely upon
`
` For
`
`
`
`. See ResQNet, 594 F.3d at 872.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 14636
`
`C.
`
`Mr. Bakewell Has Established
`
`
`
`Finally, AGIS asserts that Mr. Bakewell has not established that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Because Mr. Bakewell’s analysis applies reliable methods and explains in
`
`detail
`
`, AGIS’s Motion represents an
`
`improper attack on the weight of the Mr. Bakewell’s opinions, not their admissibility.
`
`AGIS posits that Mr. Bakewell has not
`
` the same kind of devices accused by AGIS here.
`
`AGIS contends that Mr. Bakewell
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 14637
`
` Here, AGIS cites no authority that it matters that
`
`. Further, AGIS’s characterization is incorrect. Mr. Bakewell acknowledged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS claims that Mr. Bakewell did not adjust for validity or infringement disputes,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This argument lacks legal authority, and makes no sense, as it would require accused infringers
`
`to concede patent infringement when defending against claims of patent infringement.1 AGIS
`
`next argues that
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 6:17-CV-00084-JDL (E.D. Tex.) but it is unclear how Realtime Data v. EchoStar Corp.
`
` AGIS cites to Realtime Data v. EchoStar Corp.,
`
`1
`
` But
`that is the whole point of a settlement—to resolve claims and end litigation without admission of
`liability, negligence, wrongdoing, fault, or obligation.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14638
`
`provides any support for this proposition.2 In that case, in Docket Entry No. 271, the Court
`
`denied the defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiff’s damages expert’s testimony relying on
`
`prior settlement agreements. 2018 WL 6266301, at *10. Then, in Docket Entry No. 272, the
`
`Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendants’ damages expert’s testimony with
`
`respect to a settlement agreement where the expert conceded that the settlement involved
`
`technology that was not sufficiently comparable to the technology in the hypothetical
`
`negotiations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 AGIS incorrectly cites to Realtime Data v. EchoStar Corp. “Dkt. 271” for the parenthetical “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.’” (Motion at 5.) This quote actually is found in Realtime Data v. EchoStar Corp. Dkt.
`272. Similarly, AGIS incorrectly cites to Realtime Data v. EchoStar Corp. “Dkt. 272” for the
`parenthetical “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.” (Motion at 5.) This seems to be taken from Realtime Data v. EchoStar Corp.
`Dkt. 271, though the list of factors (accused revenues, apportionment factors, and royalty rates)
`appears in a description of the expert’s report rather than in any pronouncement by the Court of
`what is “necessary to compare a lump sum license.”
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 14639
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS cites Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med. Inc., 6:15-cv-201-JRG-KNM, 2016 WL
`
`9276023, at *5 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2016), for the proposition that “[a] royalty figure that fails to
`
`account for such differences is unreliable.” (Motion at 6.) The report at issue in Flexuspine is
`
`distinguishable because the comparability “analysis” there consisted solely of an expert’s
`
`assertion that the licensed patents are “in the same field of use and relate to the same types of
`
`products as the patents-in-suit,” whereas here, Mr. Bakewell went well beyond making an
`
`abstract “same field of use” declaration. See 2016 WL 9276023, at *5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS also cites to Eidos Display LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., No. 6:11-CV-00201-
`
`JRG, 2017 WL 1322550, at *4–5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2017), for the proposition that “[a] royalty
`
`figure that fails to account for such differences is unreliable.” (Motion at 6.) In Eidos, the Court
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 14640
`
`excluded testimony based on a settlement agreement where the patent that was the subject of the
`
`agreement had expired at the time the agreement was executed. 2017 WL 1322550, at *4–5. As
`
`such, the settlement was executed in the framework of the only liability being past infringement
`
`and past damages. Id. at *4. Not so here.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Last, AGIS cites ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc., 155 F. Supp. 3d 489,
`
`511 (D. Del. 2016), for the proposition that “[a] royalty figure that fails to account for such
`
`differences is unreliable.” (Motion at 6.) ART+COM is distinguishable. The district court
`
`excluded testimony with respect to settlement licenses because the expert failed to undertake any
`
`analysis of the underlying litigation that led to the settlement. 155 F. Supp. 3d at 511−12. Here,
`
`Mr. Bakewell analyzed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 14641
`
` In ART+COM, the court
`
`noted that the expert’s economic comparability analysis “could be more detailed,” yet still held
`
`that “the analysis offered [wa]s consonant with the purpose for which the licenses [we]re
`
`offered—i.e., as a ‘check’ against [the expert’s] reasonable royalty calculation.” 155 F. Supp. 3d
`
`at 512 (footnote omitted). The court noted that “[t]hough there are differences between these
`
`licenses and the hypothetical negotiation, [the expert] acknowledge[d] those differences,” and
`
`the “‘jury [is] entitled to hear the expert testimony and decide for itself what to accept or reject.’”
`
`Id. The same conclusion is proper here.
`
`
`
`
`
` Therefore, the jury is entitled to hear Mr. Bakewell’s
`
`expert testimony and decide for itself how much weight to accord his testimony. See Summit 6,
`
`LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 802 F.3d 1283, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[W]here the
`
`methodology is reasonable and its data or evidence are sufficiently tied to the facts of the case,
`
`the gatekeeping role of the court is satisfied, and the inquiry on the correctness of the
`
`methodology and of the results produced thereunder belongs to the factfinder.”).
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, LGEKR respectfully requests that AGIS’s motion to
`
`exclude the damages testimony of Mr. Bakewell, either in its entirety or insofar as it relies on or
`
`addresses
`
`, be denied.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 14642
`
`Dated: February 11, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ James S. 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.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 14643
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal
`
`pursuant to paragraph 26 and 27 of the Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`/s/ James S. Blackburn
` James S. Blackburn
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 165 Filed 02/13/19 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 14644
`
`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 February 11, 2019.
`
`/s/ James S. Blackburn
` James S. Blackburn
`
`-16-
`
`