Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 14988
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO SEALED MOTION OF LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS OF MR. JOSEPH C. MCALEXANDER, III
`RELATING TO INFRINGEMENT (DKT. 111)
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0515-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 14989
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`LGEKR’s Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents ................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`’970 Patent Claim Elements Using the Claim Term “means for
`requiring a required manual response from the response list by
`the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from
`recipient’s cell phone display” .................................................................... 3
`
`’970 Patent Claim Elements Using the Claim Term “packet” .................... 5
`
`’970 Patent Claim Elements Using the Claim Terms
`“acknowledge receipt” and “not acknowledged receipt” ............................ 6
`
`B.
`
`LGEKR’s Importation and Sale of Accused Products ............................................ 7
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Opinions Concerning the Doctrine of Equivalents
`are Not Conclusory ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Opinions Concerning LGEKR’s Importation and
`Sale of Accused Products are Not Conclusory ..................................................... 12
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 14990
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.,
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................10
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`i4i Ltd. Patrnership v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................10
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v.Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................9
`
`United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land,
`80 F.3d 1074 (5th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. of Evid. 702 ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. of Evid. 703 ...............................................................................................................7, 9, 12
`
`Fed. R. of Evid. 704 .............................................................................................................9, 12, 13
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 14991
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) hereby submits its Response in
`
`Opposition to the Sealed Motion of LG Electronics Inc. (“LGEKR”) to Exclude the Opinions of
`
`Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander, III Relating to Infringement (Dkt. 111).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Mr. Joseph McAlexander’s expert opinions that LGEKR infringes U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,213,970 (“the ‘970 Patent”) under the doctrine of equivalents, and that LGEKR sells or imports
`
`Accused Devices in the United States, are each based on sufficient facts identified in his report.
`
`His testimony is both relevant and reliable.
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s testimony regarding the doctrine of equivalents is grounded in
`
`sufficient factual bases. LGEKR omits relevant evidence provided within the main body of
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s report pertaining to the insubstantial difference test and the function-way-
`
`result test, and misapplied both tests by conflating them into a single impossible standard. Dkt.
`
`111 at 4. LGEKR further ignored Mr. McAlexander’s ‘970 infringement claim chart, despite the
`
`fact that it was explicitly referenced as providing supporting evidence for each of doctrine of
`
`equivalents positions in question. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 140, 142, 147.
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s testimony that LGEKR imported and sold Accused Products in the
`
`United States is also grounded in sufficient factual bases. LGEKR’s arguments rest on the false
`
`premise that Mr. McAlexander was unqualified to read a shipping label, and on the incorrect
`
`assertion that he misread it. Dkt. 111 at 6-7. Neither argument bears on the reliability and
`
`relevance of Mr. McAlexander’s testimony. Further, LGEKR does not acknowledge other
`
`relevant evidence identified in Mr. McAlexander’s report, including
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. McAlexander should be able to opine on a certain document’s
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 14992
`
`relevance to direct infringement, and LGEKR presents no authority to support any findings to the
`
`contrary. In fact, this dispute is premature and properly suited for resolution at the exhibit stage.
`
`Thus, Mr. McAlexander’s testimony must be admitted pursuant to FRE 702, and under
`
`the Daubert standard.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Mr. McAlexander was proffered as an expert to “to determine whether or not any basis in
`
`fact exists for the assertion by AGIS that products sold and/or offered for sale in the United
`
`States [by LGEKR] incorporate structures, or practice methods, which are the same as or are
`
`equivalent to the corresponding elements or steps claimed in [the patents-in-suit].” Ex. A at ¶1.
`
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` LGEKR raised no dispute as to Mr. McAlexander’s qualifications
`
`prior to the instant motion, despite having official notice of his involvement and qualifications as
`
`of May 11, 2018. Ex. D at 1.
`
`
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s report on infringement included a main body that introduced and
`
`provided the basis for his opinions, and seven claim charts showing infringement on an element-
`
`by-element basis. Id. at ¶3. In forming the testimony set forth in his report, Mr. McAlexander
`
`reviewed “Interrogatories and Responses to Interrogatories, Complaints, Answers, Web site
`
`information, device specifications, brochures, correspondence, marketing information, source
`
`code, operating instructions, and deposition testimony,” in addition to specific documents
`
`enumerated in Attachment E to his report. Ex. A at ¶ 14.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 14993
`
`A.
`
`LGEKR’s Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`
`
`In the main body of his report, Mr. McAlexander opined that three ‘970 Patent claim
`
`terms are met under the doctrine of equivalents: (1)“means for requiring a required manual
`
`response from the response list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from
`
`recipient’s cell phone display,” (2) “packet,” and (3) “acknowledge receipt” and “not
`
`acknowledged receipt.” Ex. A at ¶¶ 140-149. Mr. McAlexander provided distinct explanations as
`
`to how each term was met under both the function-way-result test and the insubstantial
`
`difference test. Id. Moreover, his analysis of each term explicitly cited the accompanying ‘970
`
`claim chart for support. Id. at ¶¶ 140, 142, 147. The chart further explained how each term was
`
`satisfied under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`
`
` and provided additional
`
`detail as to the similarity of the Accused Products to each claimed limitation on the basis that
`
`they literally infringed. See e.g. Ex. B at A-a22-53.
`
`1.
`
`’970 Patent Claim Elements Using the Claim Term “means for
`requiring a required manual response from the response list by the
`recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell
`phone display”
`
`
`
`Mr. McAlexander opined that, in addition to literally infringing, the Accused Products
`
`meet the limitations of the above term under the doctrine of equivalents, “[a]s shown by at least
`
`the evidence cited in the claim chart for the corresponding [term].” Ex. A at ¶140.
`
`Mr. McAlexander reached this conclusion under both the insubstantial difference and the
`
`function-way-result tests. Id. Specifically, Mr. McAlexander reasoned that each of the accused
`
`LGEKR products provides as described in the claim limitation, by “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 14994
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶145. In the referenced ‘970 claim chart, Mr. McAlexander demonstrated
`
`equivalence via insubstantial difference, if any, between the accused product and the claim term,
`
`by showing literal infringement, and reiterated equivalence via the function-way-result test. Ex. .
`
`at A-a45-48, A-a53-58.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` LGEKR
`
`does not raise a proper Daubert challenge, as the depth of Mr. McAlexander’s explanation goes
`
`to weight and credibility, not reliability or relevance.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 14995
`
`
`
`Fig. 1, Ex. B at A-a57.
`
`2.
`
`’970 Patent Claim Elements Using the Claim Term “packet”
`
`
`
`Mr. McAlexander opined that, in addition to literally infringing, the Accused Products
`
`meet the limitations of the term “packet” under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at ¶142.
`
`Mr. McAlexander again referenced his claim chart, and set forth the “insubstantial difference”
`
`and “function-way-result” tests for determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the “packet” of the accused products is equivalent to the “packet” of the claim
`
`limitation. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 14996
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 143-144. The ‘970 chart provided additional detail regarding lack of difference
`
`
`
`
`
`between elements of the Accused Products and a “packet”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, the chart sets forth literal infringement of claim elements including the term packet in
`
`detail, and
`
`
`
` Id. at A-a38, A-a45, A-a57-61, and A-a88-91.
`
`LGEKR’s motion questions the depth of Mr. McAlexander’s explanation rather than addressing
`
`the relevance and reliability of his evidence and methods; this dispute is improper for a Daubert
`
`challenge as it goes to weight and credibility rather than reliability or relevance.
`
`3.
`
`’970 Patent Claim Elements Using the Claim Terms “acknowledge
`receipt” and “not acknowledged receipt”
`
`
`
`Finally, Mr. McAlexander opined that, in addition to literally infringing, the Accused
`
`Products meet the limitations of the terms “acknowledge receipt” and “not acknowledged
`
`receipt” under the doctrine of equivalents to the extent that the term “lists” requires separate lists.
`
`Ex. A at ¶147. Mr. McAlexander again addressed both tests, the “function-way-result” and
`
`insubstantial difference tests, and referenced his chart for support. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 14997
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶¶148-149. The ‘970 chart, again referenced for support in the main body [Id. at
`
`¶147], reiterated that equivalence under the function-way-result test, and additionally set forth
`
`literal evidence of literal infringement in detail, showing figures in support of his positions.
`
`Ex. B at A-102-105.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Again, LGEKR’s motion only disputes the sufficiency of Mr. McAlexander’s
`
`testimony, raising issues that go to weight and credibility rather than the relevance or reliability
`
`of evidence and methods.
`
`B.
`
`LGEKR’s Importation and Sale of Accused Products
`
`
`
`Mr. McAlexander was proffered as a technical expert to determine infringement, and is
`
`entitled to opine on the ultimate issue of direct infringement. Id. at ¶1. Mr. McAlexander is
`
`further entitled to base his opinion on any facts or data in the case that he has been made aware
`
`of or personally observed. Fed. R. Evid. 703. As part of his wider findings on direct
`
`infringement, Mr. McAlexander opined that LGEKR directly infringes the Patents-in-Suit by
`
`importing and selling the Accused Products. Ex. A at ¶ 135.
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 14998
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LGEKR argues in its motion that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony should be excluded as
`
`“unsupported,” effectively attempting to exclude evidence that they produced, but only disputes
`
`the merit of Mr. McAlexander’s conclusions. Dkt. 111 at 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` These issues again go to weight credibility rather than
`
`relevance and reliability.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`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 v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993);
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 14999
`
`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). Federal Rule of Evidence 704 provides that “[a]n opinion is not objectionable
`
`just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” Federal Rule of Evidence 703 further provides that
`
`“An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware
`
`of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds
`
`of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion
`
`to be admitted.”
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Mr. McAlexander’s Opinions Concerning the Doctrine of Equivalents are
`Not Conclusory
`
`LGEKR does not dispute either the relevance of the evidence that Mr. McAlexander
`
`considered in making his doctrine of equivalents determinations, or the reliability of his methods
`
`in interpreting that evidence; rather, LGEKR mischaracterizes Mr. McAlexander’s opinions as
`
`“conclusory and unsupported.” Dkt.111 at 2. To the contrary, each of Mr. McAlexander’s
`
`assertions is supported by specific evidence and explanation, and therefore cannot be
`
`“conclusory” by definition. As Mr. McAlexander’s testimony is based on sufficient facts and is
`
`undisputedly reliable and relevant, it must be admitted under Rule 702. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at
`
`589.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 15000
`
`For each claim term, Mr. McAlexander discussed the doctrine of equivalents under both
`
`the insubstantial difference test and the function way result test. Het set forth the tests and the
`
`relevant standards, explained how the function-way-result test was satisfied via parenthetical,
`
`then explained how the insubstantial difference test was satisfied as each equivalent feature was
`
`at least “interchangeable or substitutable” with the claim term. See supra II.A. Yet LGEKR
`
`scrutinizes portions of Mr. McAlexander’s testimony pertaining to the “function-way-result” test
`
`under the “insubstantial difference” standard, and vice versa, apparently taking the position that
`
`deficiency of any single proposition under either test is sufficient to exclude his report. Dkt. 111
`
`at 3 (arguing that a block quote applying the function-way-result test fails to “show how the
`
`differences in the accused products are insubstantial”). Moreover, LGEKR directs its scrutiny
`
`toward the introductory paragraphs of Mr. McAlexander’s sections, faulting his “formulaic
`
`restatement of law,” while entirely ignoring the application of that law in the very next paragraph
`
`– any introductory proposition may appear “conclusory” if isolated from subsequent explanation.
`
`Compare Dkt. 111 at 3-4 with Ex. A at ¶¶140-141, 147-148.
`
`LGEKR relies heavily on Akzo and Telemac. But those cases are irrelevant; both
`
`concerned whether an expert declaration raised a material issue of fact at summary judgment and
`
`neither so much as mentioned FRE 702 or Daubert. See Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow
`
`Chemical Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom,
`
`Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, Mr. McAlexander’s discussion of
`
`LGEKR’s Accused Products under the doctrine of equivalents was neither broad nor scant.
`
`Mr. McAlexander dedicated five pages to the equivalence of three distinct claim terms in the
`
`main body of his report, and spent an additional 120 pages in his claim chart showing that the
`
`Accused Products literally meet the claimed limitations or, failing that, are sufficiently similar to
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 15001
`
`be equivalent. Supra II.A. Thus, Mr. McAlexander’s explanations were supported by sufficient
`
`facts to satisfy the function-way-result test in the main body of his report alone. LGEKR cites to
`
`no case law to suggest that Mr. McAlexander’s function-way-result testimony should be
`
`excluded in the context of Daubert.
`
`LGEKR’s motion further ignores Mr. McAlexander’s testimony discussing “insubstantial
`
`difference,” and further supporting his function-way-result opinions, in its entirety. Compare
`
`Dkt. 111 at 2-6 with Ex. A at ¶¶ 143; supra II.A. This paragraph distinctly and particularly sets
`
`forth the lack of substantial difference between the infringing products and the “packet” claim
`
`term, explaining that
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s explanations are supported by sufficient facts to satisfy the insubstantial
`
`difference test in the main body of his report alone.
`
`
`
`Finally, LGEKR discusses each doctrine of equivalents section in complete isolation,
`
`omitting the ‘970 chart entirely despite explicit references by Mr. McAlexander to its evidence.
`
`The ‘970 chart included explicit discussion of the doctrine of equivalents
`
`
`
` However, the chart also discussed how each feature of the Accused Products
`
`literally infringes by meeting each and every claim limitation under a literal infringement test.
`
`See e.g. Ex. B at A-a53-61. An argument showing no difference between the claim terms and
`
`Accused Products also tends to show insubstantial difference. Moreover, the relevant portions of
`
`the chart each explicitly reiterated and expanded Mr. McAlexander’s function-way-result
`
`testimony immediately after explaining how each of the accused feature literally satisfies the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15002
`
`claimed element. Ex. B at A-a45, A-a58, A-a103. Thus, Mr. McAlexander also showed sufficient
`
`facts in his ‘970 claim chart to fully support every doctrine of equivalents position that he
`
`adopted.
`
`
`
`In sum, Mr. McAlexander specifically set forth facts sufficient to support his doctrine of
`
`equivalents positions, both independently in the main body of his report, and in concert with his
`
`referenced claim chart.
`
`B. Mr. McAlexander’s Opinions Concerning LGEKR’s Importation and Sale of
`Accused Products are Not Conclusory
`
`
`
`Whether LGEKR imports Accused Products into the United States is a critical issue to be
`
`determined in this case. LGEKR now seeks to hamstring AGIS by preventing it from introducing
`
`admissible evidence on the issue. LGEKR argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony is
`
`unsupported because, whether LGEKR imports and sells Accused Products “is an ultimate legal
`
`conclusion,” and as a technical expert,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 15003
`
`
`
`LGEKR’s assertion that Mr. McAlexander was not proffered to give opinion testimony
`
`regarding direct infringement via importation and sale is without merit and irrelevant to whether
`
`his opinion is supported by facts. The first sentence of Mr. McAlexander’s expert report
`
`informed LGEKR that he was retained “to determine whether or not any basis in fact exists for
`
`the assertion by AGIS that products sold and/or offered for sale in the United States by
`
`[LGEKR], incorporate structures, or practice methods which are the same as or are equivalent to
`
`the corresponding elements, or steps, claimed in [the Patents-in-Suit].” Ex. A at ¶ 1. It is
`
`similarly irrelevant to the factual support for Mr. McAlexander’s testimony whether importation
`
`and sale is “an ultimate legal conclusion;” FRE 704 plainly states that “An opinion is not
`
`objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” Thus, LGEKR’s argument that
`
`Mr. McAlexander was not proffered as a witness to testify on importation and sale is without
`
`merit, and has no bearing on the factual support for his opinions.
`
`
`
`LGEKR further argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony is unsupported because
`
` Again, this argument is without merit and Mr. McAlexander’s qualifications have no
`
`
`
`
`
`bearing on the relevance of the evidence he considered in forming his opinions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 15004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` It
`
`is AGIS’ position that LGEKR has a presence in the United States and exercises a degree of
`
`control over its subsidiaries, such that it is statutorily liable for importation of the Accused
`
`Products, despite internal documents listing it as an “exporter.” LGEKR’s agreement or
`
`disagreement with Mr. McAlexander’s ultimate opinion is immaterial to its value to the trier of
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 15005
`
`fact.
`
`
`
` Thus,
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s conclusion is supported by relevant facts, and must be admitted under Rule
`
`702 and the Daubert standard.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court deny LGEKR’s
`
`Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander, III Relating to Infringement.
`
`Dated: February 11, 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
`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.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 15006
`
`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
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 15007
`
`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-00514-JRG Document 170 Filed 02/13/19 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 15008
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on February 11, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`