Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 20030
`
`
`
`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
`SUR-REPLY 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 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 20031
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) hereby submits its Sur-Reply 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.
`
`MR. MCALEXANDER’S OPINIONS ON INFRINGEMENT THROUGH THE
`DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE
`
`LGEKR’s motion to exclude is a malformed summary judgment motion masquerading
`
`under Daubert that misapplies the doctrine of equivalents test. LGEKR’s primary attack focuses
`
`the Akzo case, which pertains to summary judgment and thus does not apply to the instant
`
`Daubert motion. Dkt. 178 at 2-3. FRE 702 concerns admissibility of expert opinions based on
`
`the expert’s evaluation of relevant facts, whereas summary judgment concerns the resolution of
`
`legal issues based on undisputed facts in the case. LGEKR could not have brought a summary
`
`judgment because there remain unresolved factual disputes concerning equivalence and
`
`importation. Because there is no legitimate issue with Mr. McAlexander’s methodology or
`
`analysis, LGEKR’s motion must fail.
`
`In arguing that Mr. McAlexander’s report should be excluded under the summary
`
`judgment standard, LGEKR applied the incorrect doctrine of equivalents test. Mr. McAlexander
`
`opined on equivalence in the relevant paragraph using the “function, way, result” formulation.
`
`LGEKR concedes that its motion merely attacked straw-men; LGEKR analyzed several passages
`
`under the “insubstantial difference” test, which is not the test McAlexander applied in the
`
`relevant portions of his report. Dkt. 178 at 1; Dkt. 111 at 3. LGEKR’s reliance on Warner-
`
`Jenkinson is inapposite. The significance of Warner-Jenkinson is that the “function, way, result”
`
`and “insubstantial difference” tests both separately go to the ultimate issue of equivalence;
`
`Warner-Jenkinson does not stand for the proposition that the “function, way, result” test must
`
`also satisfy the “insubstantial difference” test as LGEKR would have it. Dkt. 178 at 1; Warner-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 20032
`
`
`
`Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997). Indeed, in the
`
`sentence after LGEKR’s citation, the Supreme Court noted that “[d]ifferent linguistic
`
`frameworks may be more suitable to different cases, depending on their particular facts;”
`
`Warner-Jenkinson’s holding did not contemplate mixing and matching tests. Id.
`
`LGEKR admits that it excluded Mr. McAlexander’s claim chart from its Motion. Dkt.
`
`178 at 2. LGEKR raises a new, albeit cursory, argument that Mr. McAlexander’s chart “suffers
`
`from the same defects in the main body of [his] report,” without addressing whether
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s analysis for any one limitation is conclusory. Id. But LGEKR ignores that
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s chart showed how the accused devices literally meet every limitation of the
`
`asserted claims, also tending to prove “insubstantial difference” in every instance. Dkt. 149 at 11.
`
`The new paragraphs that LGEKR takes issue with are plainly the product of Mr. McAlexander’s
`
`preceding literal infringement analysis given their parenthetical references to that analysis, their
`
`colocation in claim cells with that analysis, and their evident foundation on that analysis. Id.
`
`LGEKR’s new standard would effectively require duplicating the contents of a claim cell for
`
`every related argument. That is not the requirement under Rule 702. Mr. McAlexander
`
`Because LGEKR has failed to show that the full extent of Mr. McAlexander’s opinions
`
`pertaining to the doctrine of equivalents are not supported by relevant facts and are not the
`
`product of reliable methods, LGEKR’s motion to exclude those opinions must be denied.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 20033
`
`
`
`II. MR. MCALEXANDER’S OPINIONS ON DIRECT INFRINGEMENT THROUGH
`IMPORTATION ARE ADMISSIBLE
`
`LGEKR does not dispute the relevance of the evidence Mr. McAlexander considered in
`
`forming his opinions, despite basing their argument on that assertion. Dkt. 178 at 3; Dkt. 111 at
`
`6-7. LGEKR does not dispute the relevance of
`
`
`
`
`
`LGEKR doubles down on its argument that Mr. McAlexander was unqualified to read a
`
`shipping label, but this argument is inconsistent with the record and its own expert’s opinion of
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s qualifications. Mr. McAlexander’s report disclosed extensive qualifications
`
`probative of his ability to read and comprehend the plain English words written on a shipping
`
`label. Dkt. 149 at 2. Mr. McAlexander further showed a thorough understanding of the law on
`
`direct infringement, and the significance of importation as a mode of infringement. Id. LGEKR’s
`
`expert, Mr. Edward R. Tittel, reviewed and submitted a rebuttal non-infringement report to Mr.
`
`McAlexander’s infringement report. When asked at his deposition whether he had any reason to
`
`challenge Mr. McAlexander’s qualifications in this case, Mr. Tittel stated unequivocally that he
`
`did not object to the qualifications of Mr. McAlexander and offered that Mr. McAlexander’s
`
`qualifications were consistent with those of other experts in patent infringement cases under U.S.
`
`law. Ex. A at 17:6-19. Mr. Tittel’s concession confirms that such issues are appropriately
`
`handled by “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 20034
`
`
`
`instruction on the burden of proof. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
`
`579, 596 (1993).
`
`Aside from Mr. McAlexander’s qualifications, LGEKR argues against the merits of
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s conclusions, alleging misinterpretation.” Dkt. 178 at 3. But this is no
`
`grounds for exclusion: “The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not
`
`on the conclusions that they generate.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
`
`579, 595 (1993). Moreover, that LGEKR enters its name in the “exporter” field of its shipping
`
`labels does not render Mr. McAlexander’s assessment incorrect. Whether the Accused Devices
`
`cross the U.S. border before their sale to LGEKR’s American subsidiaries is a hotly-disputed
`
`issue in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 20035
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, because Mr. McAlexander’s opinions are supported by relevant facts, and are the
`
`product of reliable methods, LGEKR’s motion to exclude those opinions must be denied.
`
`III. 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 22, 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.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 20036
`
`
`
`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
`
`Rebecca MacDowell Lecaroz
`Massachusetts Bar No. 666860
`Email: rlecaroz@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 856-8200
`Facsimile: (617) 856-8201
`
`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
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 20037
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 240 Filed 02/27/19 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 20038
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on February 22, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`