Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 15024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC’S DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF
`W. CHRISTOPHER BAKEWELL RELATING TO DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 15025
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3 
`A.  
`Settlement Agreements May be Considered a Comparable License. .................... 3 
`B. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`
` ........................................................................................ 4 
`
` ..................................... 5 
`
`. ....................................................................... 6 
`AGIS’ claims of “no evidence”
`
`
`to the current accused products and “no evidence” of
`. ................................................... 8 
`
` ........................................ 9 
`AGIS misconstrues both the Eidos Display and ART+COM cases. ........ 10 
`
`. ........................................................... 11 
`
`
`
`. ................................................................................................... 12 
`
`C. 
`
`
` ........................................................................ 12 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 14 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`I.  
`II.  
`
`III. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 15026
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Network, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., et al.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Circ. 2012) ............................................................................................ 2, 7
`ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc.,
`155 F. Supp. 3d 489 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2016) ..................................................................... 10, 11
`AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................ 4
`Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. CIV.A. 2:06-CV-72, 2010 WL 903259 (E.D.
`Tex. Mar. 4, 2010) ...................................................................................................................... 7
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) .................................... 2, 15
`Eidos Display LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., No. 6:11-CV-00201-JRG, 2017 WL 1322550
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2017) .................................................................................................. 10, 11
`Flexuspine Inc. v. Globus Med. Inc., 6:15-cv-201-JRG-KNM,
`2016 WL 9276023 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2016) ........................................................................ 9, 10
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................. 7
`In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 7
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................... 3, 4
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................. 2
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017),
`cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 429 (2017) ......................................................................................... 4, 5
`Realtime Data v. Echostar Corp. et al., No. 6:17-CV-00084-JDL,
`2018 WL 6266301 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2018) ....................................................................... 4, 9
`Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............. 4
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................... 3, 4, 5, 7
`Sting Soccer Operations Group LP v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`Case No. 4:15-CV-127, 2016 WL 4094980 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2016) ...................................... 3
`Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. E-Z-EM, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-262 (TJW),
`2010 WL 774878 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2010) ............................................................................... 7
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................... 5
`United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land Situated in Leflore Cty., Miss.,
`80 F.3d 1074 (5th. Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 2
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...................................................................................................................... 2, 15
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 15027
`
`
`
` I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS”) Daubert Motion to Exclude
`
`Opinions of W. Christopher Bakewell Relating to Damages (Dkt. No. 128) (“Motion”) does not
`
`challenge the methodology that Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
` Instead, by express
`
`admission in its Motion, AGIS disputes the facts and some of the “data points” that
`
`
`
` Key examples of this that
`
`form the crux AGIS’s arguments throughout its Motion are:
`
`●
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This foundation of the Motion, littered with AGIS’s own opinions and criticisms articulated in
`
`terms of degree (i.e. – “mainly,” “or minimizes,” “sufficient,” “or glossing over,” etc.), fails to
`
`comport with the most basic understanding of legitimate bases for a viable Daubert motion. AGIS
`
`does not agree with certain, limited conclusions
`
` based upon
`
`its interpretation of the facts underlying those conclusions. As such, Plaintiff’s challenge to Mr.
`
`Bakewell’s opinion goes to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility, and is insufficient
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 15028
`
`grounds to exclude part of (and certainly not all of as requested by Plaintiff)1 Mr. Bakewell’s
`
`testimony under Daubert2 and Fed. R. Evid. 702. See ActiveVideo Network, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., et al., 694 F.3d 1312, 1333 (Fed. Circ. 2012); see also Micro Chem., Inc. v.
`
`Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When, as here, the parties’ experts rely on
`
`conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts
`
`underlying one expert’s testimony”); Fed. R. Evid. 702, advisory committee notes (2000) (“When
`
`facts are in dispute, experts sometimes reach different conclusions based on competing versions
`
`of the facts. The emphasis in the amendment on ‘sufficient facts or data’ is not intended to
`
`authorize a trial court to exclude an expert’s testimony on the ground that the court believes one
`
`version of the facts and not the other”).
`
`Furthermore, courts in this District properly steer these types of arguments to the
`
`courtroom, where they belong, and where cross-examination can flesh out the weight of competing
`
`opinions for the jury to fulfill their role as fact-finders.
`
`The Court’s gate-keeping function under Daubert is not intended to replace the
`adversarial system and the jury’s responsibility to evaluate and weigh the evidence
`presented by each party’s experts. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (“Vigorous cross-
`examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the
`burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but
`admissible evidence.”); see also 14.38 Acres of Land Situated in Leflore Cty., Miss.,
`80 F.3d at 1078 [United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land Situated in Leflore Cty.,
`Miss., 80 F.3d 1074 (5th. Cir. 1996)] (The trial court must act “with proper
`deference to the jury’s role as the arbiter of disputes between conflicting opinions.
`As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion
`affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should
`be left for the jury’s consideration.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 15029
`
`Sting Soccer Operations Group LP v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:15-CV-127, 2016
`
`WL 4094980, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2016) (emphasis added). AGIS’ hyperbolized contrary
`
`views of Mr. Bakewell’s analysis regarding the factual bases for his opinions as to the proper
`
`reasonable royalty are simply incorrect. AGIS argues that, “Mr. Bakewell’s analysis is fatally
`
`flawed because
`
`
`
` As explained
`
`further below, each of Mr. Bakewell’s opinions is proper and based upon well-reasoned analysis
`
`of the evidence that has been provided in this case.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Settlement Agreements May be Considered a Comparable License.
`
`A.
`
` A
`
` central premise of AGIS’s Motion is that
`
`
`
`
`
` To the contrary, the cases cited by AGIS fully support the
`
`admissibility of Mr. Bakewell’s opinions as based on a reliable license. First, 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 technology. See 594 F.3d
`
`860 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 references its prior decision in
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 15030
`
`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. 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 because it was entered into three years after
`
`the hypothetical negotiation date. Id. at 77-78.
`
`Settlement agreements often may be introduced as comparable licenses, so long as
`
`technical and economic comparability is established.3
`
`
`
`
`
` Indeed, settlements can be even more on-point to a hypothetical license than
`
`other agreements. 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 these controlling authorities.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Realtime Data 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)).
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 15031
`
`1.
`
`
`To allegedly support its argument
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
` AGIS sets forth several factual contentions in its Motion.
`
`Although these factual disputes are properly addressed at trial, HTC addresses them each as
`
`follows, both in response and to clarify what
`
`. AGIS
`
` AGIS also claims that Mr. Bakewell merely
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As the Prism
`
`case explains, agreements that involve litigation can be, in a sense, even more like a hypothetical
`
`license than non-litigation agreements.5 For example, litigation has a benefit of having discovery
`
`mechanisms that can make the economics more transparent, and a claim construction process that
`
`
`
`5 849 F.3d 1360.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 15032
`
`can make the legal boundaries of a patent right clearer. As a case progresses, there can be
`
`additional clarity about the scope of patent rights from a claim construction ruling.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`AGIS asserts that Mr. Bakewell did not
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` But, virtually all settlements in patent litigation resolve disputes over validity
`
`and infringement, and AGIS cites nothing that express recitation of this reality is a prerequisite to
`
`offering a comparability opinion. In fact,
`
`
`
`
`
` For example, a claim construction hearing was held on
`
`January 25, 2012,6 and a claim construction order was entered on February 3, 2012.7
`
` Mr. Bakewell further recognized that
`
` Moreover, there is
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`) This quells AGIS’ complaint that the
`
`
`6 Claim Construction Hearing and Motion Hearing filed January 25, 2012, Alfred B. Levine v. Samsung Telecomm.
`America, et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00372.
`7 Claim Construction Order filed February 3, 2012, Alfred B. Levine v. Samsung Telecomm. America, et al., Case No.
`2:09-cv-00372.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 15033
`
`
`
`AGIS’ challenge as to Mr. Bakewell’s
`
`
`
` is a
`
`challenge that goes directly to the weight—not the admissibility—of Mr. Bakewell’s opinion, and
`
`should be addressed by AGIS during cross examination at trial. As recognized in Cardsoft Inc. v.
`
`Verifone Systems, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-98-RSP, challenges to the terms of patent license agreements
`
`entered into during litigation go more to the weight than the admissibility of those agreements.
`
`See id., Dkt. No. 377 at 3-4 (June 4, 2012). This notion was also confirmed by the Federal Circuit
`
`in ActiveVideo Network, 694 F.3d 1312. In affirming the lower court’s decision not to exclude a
`
`damages expert’s opinion where the expert relied upon settlement agreements that included a
`
`patent license, the Federal Circuit noted,
`
`[a]t their core … Verizon’s disagreements are with the conclusions reached by
`ActiveVideo’s expert and the factual assumptions and considerations underlying
`those conclusions, not his methodology. These disagreements go to the weight to
`be afforded the testimony and not its admissibility. See [i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft
`Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 854 (Fed. Cir. 2010)] (holding that a party’s quarrel with the
`facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert’s
`opinion). The degree of comparability of the Gemstar and Grande license
`agreements as well as any failure on the part of ActiveVideo’s expert to control for
`certain variables are factual issues best addressed by cross examination and not
`by exclusion.
`
`Id. at 1333 (emphasis added).8 Other courts in this District have properly allowed experts to rely
`
`upon licenses arising from patent cases. See, e.g., Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., No.
`
`CIV.A. 2:06-CV-72, 2010 WL 903259, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2010) (“In light of ResQNet,
`
`litigation-relediosated licenses should not be excluded from [] trial”); Tyco Healthcare Group LP
`
`v. E-Z-EM, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-262 (TJW), 2010 WL 774878, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2010) (“A
`
`
`8 Following ResQNet, the Federal Circuit in In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012), reaffirmed that
`settlement agreements can be relevant to damages calculations. See id. at 1348 (citing ResQNet.com, 594 F.3d at 872).
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 15034
`
`prior, related settlement agreement, where it exists, may be central to the fact-finder’s
`
`determination of damages using a hypothetical negotiations analysis”).
`
`3.
`
`
`Next, AGIS takes the factual, as well as over-stated, positions
`
`.
`
`
`
`
` “no
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of providing navigation are its smartphones and tablets, which are the same HTC devices accused
`
`
`
` Importantly, HTC devices that are capable
`
`by AGIS.
`
`As to HTC products being tied to the royalty amount,
`
` accused HTC handset
`
`products of infringement. Of course, HTC disputed that its products practiced the claims of the
`
`asserted patents. Nevertheless, it is HTC sales of smartphones at issue in the
`
`matter and in
`
`this matter.
`
`. In fact,
`
` specified that the
`
`
`
`
`
`was accusing virtually all of HTC’s smartphones of alleged infringement. In addition,
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, similar to this instant matter, Levine
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 15035
`
`reports in May 2012;10 these reports would have
`
` The parties exchanged expert
`
`
`
`. Moreover, AGIS’
`
`reliance upon the Realtime Data case in arguing its position on this point is misplaced. Realtime
`
`Data, 6:17-CV-00084-RWS-JDL, Dkt. No. 272. AGIS points out that, “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[”].” Id. at 8. But a review
`
`of the Court’s ruling on the Daubert motion in Realtime (Dkt. No. 272) reveals that AGIS is taking
`
`this quote out of context.
`
`
`
`
`
`. The Court
`
`agreed that the expert should not rely on the agreement at issue because the agreement “would not
`
`have been relied upon in the hypothetical negotiation as to an appropriate reasonable royalty
`
`[because it was not technically comparable] and the relevance of the “license and litigation activity
`
`remains unclear.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`Following, AGIS disputes Mr. Bakewell’s
`
`. According to AGIS, Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AGIS cites Flexuspine Inc. v. Globus Med. Inc.,
`
`
`10 Amended Scheduling Order and Discovery Order, March 19, 2012, Alfred B. Levine v. Samsung Telecomm.
`America, et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00372.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 15036
`
`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.” (Id.) 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
`
`
`
` See 2016 WL 9276023, at *5. For example, Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Therefore, Mr. Bakewell has shown sufficient technological comparability.
`
`AGIS misconstrues both the Eidos Display and ART+COM cases.
`
`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 7.) In Eidos, the Court excluded
`
`testimony based on a settlement agreement where the patent that was the subject of the agreement
`
`was expired at the time the agreement was executed. 2017 WL 1322550, at *4-5. As such, the
`
`settlement was executed where the only liability was for past infringement and past damages. Id.
`
`at *4. That is not the case
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 15037
`
` Thus, HTC’s
`
`
`
`
`
`. Next, AGIS cites ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH
`
`v. Google Inc., 155 F. Supp. 3d 489, 511 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2016), for the proposition that “[a]
`
`royalty figure that fails to account for such differences is unreliable.” (Motion at 7-8.) ART+COM
`
`is also 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. Here, Mr. Bakewell
`
`6.
`
`
`AGIS goes further to claim that, “Mr. Bakewell
`
` However, Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. In other words, while patents may
`
`
`
` With respect to the AGIS patents, Mr. Bakewell expressed
`
` Mr. Bakewell also notes that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This is
`
`contrary to AGIS’s presumption that its patents represent
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15038
`
`In analyzing the economic life of the
`
`Bakewell did consider
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, contrary to AGIS’ assertion, Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, AGIS has not provided any evidence or basis showing any technological changes or
`
`market changes over time.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`
`Lastly in arguing lack of economic comparability to the hypothetical license, AGIS
`
`
`
`
`complains that
`
`opining that
`
` However, Mr. Bakewell addressed this issue,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`.
`
`AGIS virtually parrots its fact-based arguments regarding the
`
` And in similar response as explained above, Mr. Bakewell addresses
`
`. AGIS again complains that,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 15039
`
` Not true. There is
`
`Next, AGIS asserts that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` However, in the
`
` HTC was accused of making, using, and
`
`selling products that infringed the asserted patents, including, for example, cellular telephones that
`
`each include, among other things, a navigational receiver for providing a location of the phone.11
`
`AGIS claims that the same HTC devices infringe its patents.
`
`AGIS again claims the
`
` But Mr. Bakewell recognized that
`
` Furthermore, in analyzing
`
` Mr. Bakewell noted that
`
` Mr. Bakewell also recognized that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11 Amended Complaint filed July 27, 2011, MOSAID Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Comm. (USA), Inc.
`et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-00598, pp. 3-4.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 15040
`
`In this regard, Mr. Bakewell concluded it
`
` Clearly, Mr. Bakewell considered the
`
`
`
`AGIS over-reaches again, claiming that there is
`
` But in reality,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`smartphone products of infringement. Of course, HTC disputed that its products practiced the
`
`claims of the asserted patents. Nevertheless, it is the same
`
` As Mr. Bakewell discussed,
`
`.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`All of AGIS’ complaints are factual, and its disagreements with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` go to the weight of his testimony and not its admissibility. Moreover, HTC points to
`
`competent and adequate counter-points by Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
` Mr. Bakewell’s Report should be allowed in its entirety based on the standard set
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 15041
`
`forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert. Mr. Bakewell meets each of the requirements to testify as
`
`an expert witness: (1) he is qualified to testify competently regarding a reasonable royalty as
`
`damages in this case; (2) the methodology used to reach his conclusions is reliable under Daubert;
`
`and (3) his testimony assists the jury to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
`
`Therefore, HTC respectfully requests that the Court deny AGIS’ Motion in its entirety.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 15042
`
`Dated: February 12, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by,
`
`
`
` /s/ Eric H. Findlay
`
`
`Eric H. Findlay (Texas Bar No. 00789886)
`Brian Craft (Texas Bar No. 04972020)
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 N. College Ave., Ste. 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Email: efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`Email: bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`Tel: (903) 534-1100
`Fax: (903) 534-1137
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein (Lead Attorney)
`CA State Bar No. 199240
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`Miguel J. Bombach
`CA State Bar No. 274287
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera
`CA State Bar No. 314664
`kcanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`Tel: (858) 720-5700
`Fax: (858) 720-5799
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 172 Filed 02/14/19 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 15043
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-
`
`5(a)(3) on this 12th day of February, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric H. Findlay
`Eric H. Findlay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`This certifies, pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), this document is authorized to be filed
`
`under seal pursuant to a Protective Order, Dkt. No. 44, entered on February 23, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric H. Findlay
`Eric H. Findlay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`