Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 19278
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`REPLY TO AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
`TO LG ELECTRONICS INC.’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS OF MR.
`JOSEPH C. MCALEXANDER, III RELATING TO INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`REPLY TO AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
`TO LG ELECTRONICS INC.’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE OPINIONS OF MR.
`JOSEPH C. MCALEXANDER, III RELATING TO INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 19279
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS CONCLUSORY AND UNSUPPORTED ......................1
`SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS BASELESS AND IMPROPER ......................................3
`CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................4
`
`MR. MCALEXANDER’S
`
` OPINIONS
`
`MR. MCALEXANDER’S OPINIONS REGARDING WHETHER
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 19280
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 2
`
`Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .......................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702.......................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 19281
`
`
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth below, and as set forth in LG Electronics Inc.’s (“LG Korea”)
`
`motion (D.I. 111), certain opinions of AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS”) expert,
`
`Mr. McAlexander, should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
`
`I.
`
` OPINIONS
`MR. MCALEXANDER’S
`SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS CONCLUSORY AND UNSUPPORTED
`
`AGIS asserts that LG Korea conflates Mr. McAlexander’s proffered testimony
`
`
`
` and
`
`thereby misconstrues his testimony altogether. (D.I. 149 at 10.) This is a red herring. The
`
`Supreme Court instructs that it is immaterial whether the test is labeled “insubstantial difference”
`
`or “function-way-result,” so long as the analysis focuses on the equivalency of the individual
`
`claim elements. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997)
`
`(“In our view, the particular linguistic framework used is less important than whether the test is
`
`probative of the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or process contain elements
`
`identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention?”).
`
`AGIS contends that Mr. McAlexander’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 19282
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“fail to articulate how [the] accused process operates in substantially
`
`the same way,” or “how the differences between the two processes are insubstantial.” See Akzo
`
`Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that the
`
`plaintiff “failed to provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that [the
`
`defendant’s] valve, pipes, and heat exchangers operate in substantially the same way as the
`
`claimed” process). AGIS contends that Akzo is irrelevant because it did not mention FRE 702 or
`
`Daubert (D.I. 149 at 10), but, as described in LG Korea’s motion, Akzo provides relevant Federal
`
`Circuit law for the adequacy of an infringement analysis under the doctrine of equivalents. See
`
`Akzo, 811 F.3d at 1342-43. That which cannot give rise to a genuine issue of fact, even with all
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 19283
`
`
`
`
`
`inferences taken in favor of the non-moving party, necessarily fails the Daubert gatekeeping
`
`standard.
`
`II. MR. MCALEXANDER’S OPINIONS REGARDING
`
`SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS BASELESS AND IMPROPER
`
`Unable to dispute Mr. McAlexander’s lack of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AGIS responds with a non-sequitur:
`
`AGIS never explains.
`
`
`
`
`
` How does
`
`
`
`
`
`To provide expert opinion testimony, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that “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.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. The proponent of
`
`such testimony must show a reliable connection between the methods employed and the opinions
`
`proffered. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590-92 (1993) (“[I]n order to
`
`qualify as ‘scientific knowledge,’ an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific
`
`method. . . . Rule 702’s ‘helpfulness’ standard requires a valid scientific connection to the
`
`pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.”).
`
` AGIS has not shown that any testimony by Mr. McAlexander as to
`
`
`
`
`
` has “a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline.” See id.
`
`at 592.
`
`
`
`
`LG Korea showed that Mr. McAlexander misinterpreted
`
`
`
` which separately merits his
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 19284
`
`exclusion. AGIS concedes this point. (
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AGIS seeks to excuse this mistake on the claimed basis that
`
` This misses the point. First, whether or not Mr. McAlexander
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`neither AGIS nor Mr. McAlexander supply any explanation of principles or methods he used to
`
`bring any expert analysis to bear on
`
`,
`
`or how these pieces of information led him to his conclusion. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 702(c)
`
`(providing that admissible expert testimony must be “the product of reliable principles and
`
`methods”). Thus, he is not providing expert testimony—he is just stating incorrect facts.
`
`Second, LG Korea notes that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, LG Korea’s motion should be granted, and the portions of
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s opinions described above should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 19285
`
`
`
`Dated: February 19, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Michael A. 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
`
`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.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 19286
`
`
`
`
`
`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 A. Berta
` Michael A. Berta
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 222 Filed 02/21/19 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 19287
`
`
`
`
`
`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 19, 2019.
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael A. Berta
` Michael A. Berta
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
