Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 5082
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 2:18-cv-00508-JRG-RSP
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`UNILOC S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF EXPERT REPORTS BY
`SAMSUNG S EXPERT NENAD MEDVIDOVIC
`
`3459152.v1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 5083
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................ 2
`ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`
`Stricken for Failing to Identify and Apply Reliable Methods in Testing
`The Nokia 9000i Communicator ............................................................................ 4
`
`B.
`
`be Stricken for Failing to Identify and Apply Reliable Methods in Testing
`................................................................................................................... 8
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 11
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 5084
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
`Case No. 9-13-cv-102, 2015 WL 9450793 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2015) ...................................... 4
`,
`393 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 4
`Curtis v. M & S Petroleum, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993).................................................................................................................... 2
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`Case No. 13-cv-03999, 2015 WL 4272870 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2015)..................................... 10
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, Dkt. No. 549 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020)................................... 7, 8
`Hathaway v. Bazany,
`507 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Hendricks v. Ford Motor Co.,
`Case No. 4:12-CV-71, 2012 WL 12045429 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2012).................................. 3, 7
`Johnson v. Arkema, Inc.,
`685 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999).................................................................................................................... 2
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,
`317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................... 2
`Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................... 3
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................... 2
`U.S. v. Valencia,
`600 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 2
`Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`826 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Williams v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`Case No. 4:08-cv-487, 2009 WL 305139 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2009)........................................... 3
`XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`Case No. 09-157-RGA, 2013 WL 1702159 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2013) ......................................... 8
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) ............................................................................................................. 3
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ............................................................................................................................ 2
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 5085
`
`Plaintiff, Uniloc 2017 LLC ( Uniloc ), hereby respectfully moves to strike portions of
`
`the expert reports on invalidity and non-infringement by the expert for Defendants, Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. (collectively Samsung ), for the
`
`reasons set forth below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, prepared two expert reports in this matters on
`
`invalidity and non-infringement, respectively served on February 18, 2020, and March 9, 2020.
`
`Exs. A (invalidity report), B (non-infringement report).1 Dr. Medvidovic was deposed regarding
`
`his opinions and reports on March 26 and 27, 2020. In providing his opinion on invalidity, Dr.
`
`Medvidovic relies largely upon a Nokia 9000i Communicator User Manual, and allegedly, the
`
`accompanying Nokia 9000i device. See generally, Ex. A; see also id. at ¶¶ 60, 65-68, § X.A, Ex.
`
`D-2. In his report on non-infringement, Dr. Medvidovic opines that
`
`-activated assistant,
`
`authenticating themselves with a pin. . .
`
`See Ex. B at ¶ 89. Both reports refer to certain testing
`
`Dr. Medvidovic performed to support his invalidity and non-infringement positions. However, in
`
`each instance, Dr. Medvidovic failed to specifically identify what particular steps were taken
`
`during his testing, what testing or support
`
`if any was performed by another individual, and
`
`what specific results he obtained from testing. As such, any reference to testing performed, and
`
`the results of any such testing, by Dr. Medvidovic should be stricken as they are conclusory and
`
`unreliable.
`
`1
`Unless otherwise noted, citations to Exhibits herein are attached to the accompanying
`Declaration of Aaron S. Jacobs.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5086
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`An expert witness may provide opinion testimony if
`
`(a) 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; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony
`
`is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
`
`principles and methods to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702. 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 Kumho Tire Co. v.
`
`Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
`
`592-93 (1993). District courts are accorded broad discretion in making Rule 702 determinations.
`
`Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 ( [T]he trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a
`
`particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable. ).
`
`Whether proffered evidence is admissible at trial is a procedural issue not unique to
`
`patent law, and therefore decisions whether to admit expert testimony are reviewed under the
`
`law of the regional circuit. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1294 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (citing Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1390 91 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`Although the Fifth Circuit and other courts have identified various factors that the district court
`
`may consider in determining whether an expert s testimony should be admitted, the common
`
`nature of these factors direct the trial court to consider as its ultimate inquiry whether the
`
`expert s testimony is sufficiently (1) reliable and (2) relevant to be helpful to the finder of fact
`
`and thus to warrant admission at trial. U.S. v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 424 (5th Cir. 2010).
`
`The reliability prong [of Daubert] mandates that expert opinion be grounded in the
`
`methods and procedures of science and . . . be more than unsupported speculation or subjective
`
`belief.
`
`Id. at 459 (quoting Curtis, 174 F.3d at 668). The relevance prong [of Daubert] requires
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 5087
`
`the proponent [of the expert testimony] to demonstrate that the expert s reasoning or
`
`methodology can be properly applied to the facts in issue.
`
`Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d
`
`452, 459 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Curtis v. M & S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661, 668 (5th Cir.
`
`1999)).
`
`The party offering the expert s testimony has the burden to prove by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence that: (1) the expert is qualified; (2) the testimony is relevant to an issue in the case;
`
`and (3) the testimony is reliable. Hendricks v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 4:12-CV-71, 2012 WL
`
`12045429, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2012).
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires a disclosed expert to provide an expert report
`
`R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i)-
`
`r data considered by the w
`
`parties reasonable opportunity to prepare for effective cross examination and perhaps arrange for
`
`expert testimony from other wi
`
`Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson
`
`Vision Care, Inc., 725 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`An expert report should include a discussion of the methodology, relevant literature and
`
`scientific testing
`
`.
`
`testimony that
`
`it is so is not admissible Williams v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case No. 4:08-cv-
`
`487, 2009 WL 305139, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2009) (quoting Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d
`
`312, 318 (5th Cir. 2007). Subjective opinions have long been insufficient for the admission of
`
`purported expert testimony. Williams, 2009 WL 305139, at *3 (citing Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`
`826 F.2d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 1987).
`
`court is not required to admit opinion evidence that is
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 5088
`
`connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert, and may rightfully exclude expert
`
`testimony where a court finds that an expert has extrapolated data, and there is too great an
`
`Inc., Case No. 9-13-cv-102, 2015 WL 9450793, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2015) (internal
`
`quotations omitted) (quoting Burleson v. Tex. Dep t Crim. Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 587 (5th Cir.
`
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs,
`
`2004)).
`
`both expressly encompass opinions relying upon his
`
`supposed inspection and testing of alleged prior art devices, namely, the Nokia 9000i
`
`Communicator and the Samsung Accused Products, without ever indicating the manner in which
`
`he performed these inspections or tests. Therefore, all portions of his reports relying upon device
`
`testing, including images and screenshots of such, should be stricken, and Dr. Medvidovic
`
`should be precluded from testifying about such testing or utilizing the particular devices at trial.
`
`A.
`
`Portions of Dr. Medvidovic s Expert Report on Invalidity Should be Stricken for
`Failing to Identify and Apply Reliable Methods in Testing The Nokia 9000i
`Communicator
`
`Dr. Medvidovic s expert report regarding the validity of the 654 patent identifies six
`
`prior art patents and applications, one prior art publication, and four prior art systems. Ex. A ¶
`
`the Nokia 9000i Communicator
`
`, one of the four prior art systems, are unreliable and irrelevant, as they are subjective
`
`conclusions based entirely upon unknown principles and methods. Id. ¶¶ 65-68 & 95-17; id. at
`
`Ex. D-2. None of the opinions relating to the Nokia Device rely on the device itself but, rather,
`
`on the Nokia User Manual.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic
`
`patent are anticipated by the Nokia User Manual and the Nokia Device. Id. ¶¶ 95-171. The
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 5089
`
`includes the following as the basis for his conclusion that the Nokia
`
`Device is a prior art system:
`
`The Nokia 9000i Communicator is a mobile phone, messaging device, Internet
`access terminal and palmtop unit. The Nokia 9000i was publicly available for
`purchase at least as early as October/November 1997, as demonstrated by at least
`the device itself, the associated Nokia 9000i Communicator User Manual Issue
`1.1, and the Declarations of Timo Henttonen and Jari Toivanen. Furthermore, I
`had a teleconference with Timo Henttonen on February 13, 2020, in which he
`confirmed the accuracy of the contents of his declaration concerning the public
`availability of the Nokia 9000i Communicator and the Nokia User Manual.
`Therefore, the Nokia 9000i Communicator qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Id. ¶ 65 (internal citations omitted).2 Further, when expressing his opinions regarding
`
`anticipation by the Nokia Device itself, Dr. Medvidovic offers only the following:
`
`Additionally, although not expressly included below, for the same reasons as set
`forth below for the Nokia User Manual and in Exhibit D2, the Nokia 9000i
`Communicator anticipates and/or renders obvious each of the Asserted Claims.
`Specifically, as described below, the Nokia User Manual describes the features
`and functions of the Nokia 9000i Communicator.
`
`Id. ¶ 96 (emphasis added).
`
`Id. ¶ 65; id. at Ex. D-2, p.2, n.1. Yet, the
`
`Tino Henttonen was allegedly a member of the team responsible for developing the
`2
`Nokia 9000i Communicator. The relevant portion of his cited Declaration provides:
`I became
`
`distributed with these devices . . .,
`
`9000i
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 5090
`
`Medvidovic Dep. (Ex. C) at 300:19-301:2.3
`
`During his deposition, Dr. Medvidovic was questioned extensively regarding the Nokia
`
`Device, including the test protocol implemented, the steps taken to reach the particular screens
`
`captured in Exhibit D-2, and how it was confirmed that the Nokia Device operates exactly as
`
`explained by the Nokia User Manual. With regard to the test protocol implemented and the steps
`
`taken to reach the particular screens captured, Dr. Medvidovic offered the following:
`
`Ex. C at 311-313. With regard to the test protocol implemented, and how it was determined that
`
`the Nokia User Manual provided accurate descriptions of how the Nokia Device operated, Dr.
`
`Medvidovic offered the following:
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 5091
`
`Ex. C at 292:4-24 (emphasis added).
`
`Ex. A ¶ 109.
`
`On all of these issues, neither
`
`report, nor his deposition, provided
`
`information to close the analytical gap between the data and the opinions proffered in his report.
`
`are all undisclosed and unknown.
`
`Since Dr. Medvidovic fails to disclose any independent facts or data regarding the Nokia
`
`Device in his report, the reliability and relevance of his opinions cannot be determined.
`
`Hendricks, 2012 WL 12045429, at *2. Additionally, because he has not provided any reliable
`
`basis for drawing the inference that the Nokia Device functions in accord with the Nokia User
`
`Manual, his opinion on this ultimate issue falls short of a reliable opinion based on [Dr.
`
`] s
`
`XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 09-157-RGA, 2013 WL 1702159, at *1 (D. Del.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 5092
`
`Feb. 25, 2013).4 Therefore, the corresponding portions of
`
`report, and the
`
`opinions based thereon, should be stricken, and he should be precluded from testifying at all with
`
`regards to the Nokia Device.
`
`B.
`
`Portions of Dr. Medvidovic s Expert Report on Noninfringement Should be
`Stricken for Failing to Identify and Apply Reliable Methods in Testing
`
`In his expert report on infringement, Dr. Medvidovic takes the position that one way a
`
`user can use the phone to place calls without authenticating themselves with a PIN
`
`-activated
`
`The
`
`to eight paragraphs in the report,
`
`analysis
`
`is limited
`
`Dr. Medvidovic also
`
`Id.
`
`Id. ¶ 93. The evidence for this opinion
`
`See also Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, Dkt. No. 549, slip
`4
`op. at 3-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) (Ex. D) (
`because by not explaining the technical documents used to form his opinion, the testimony was
`impermissible speculation and not within the purview of technical experts).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 5093
`
`this begs the questions: Who
`
`else was involved in testing? How was this hypothesis tested? And where is any information, or
`
`a declaration, indicating as much?
`
`Much of the unknown information surrounding Bixby testing was not sufficiently
`
`clarified during deposition. When asked which phones
`
`response was
`
`Ex. C at 86:3-5. Dr. Medvidovic did confirm he had
`
`Id. at 86:6-13. However, the failure to conduct reliable and relevant tests
`
`using any reliable methodology became even more apparent at deposition. When asked about
`
`options for a voice password during Bixby set-up,
`
`Ex. C at 88:19-89:16 (emphasis added). And Dr. Medvidovic even provided deposition
`
`testimony that indicates
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 5094
`
`Ex. C at 90:10-91:15 (emphasis added).
`
`s disclose limited methodology for all of the tests undertaken,
`
`and no methodology for the
`
`another occasion, Dr. Medvidovic offers nothing more than an assertion that he personally
`
`performed the tests, he has these conclusory results, and he will potentially show this all again at
`
`trial. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999, 2015 WL 4272870, at
`
`*4 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2015) (citation omitted):
`
`ct my
`
`Medvidovic will not testify concerning infringement, it is not clear whether his
`test results would even be relevant to his testimony. In any case, because Dr.
`Medvidovic d
`motion to exclude his testimony regarding testing is GRANTED.
`
`In light of the inability to ascertain the relevance and reliability of the Bixby tests performed, Dr.
`
`ment opinions regarding Bixby should be struck from his report, and
`
`precluded at trial.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 5095
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Uniloc respectfully requests that this Motion be granted.
`
`Dated: April 24, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Aaron S. Jacobs
`Paul J. Hayes
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Kevin Gannon
`Aaron S. Jacobs
`Alyssa H. Ruderman
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`One International Place - Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: 617-456-8000
`Email: phayes@princelobel.com
`Email: btollefson@pricelobel.com
`Email: kgannon@princelobel.com
`Email: ajacobs@princelobel.com
`Email: aruderman@princelobel.com
`
`William E. Davis, III
`Texas State Bar No. 24047416
`The Davis Firm, PC
`213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: (903) 230-9090
`Facsimile: (903) 230-9661
`Email: bdavis@davisfirm.com
`
`Edward R. Nelson III
`ed@nelbum.com
`Texas State Bar No. 00797142
`NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`Tel: (817) 377-9111
`
`Shawn Latchford
`shawn@nbafirm.com
`Texas State Bar No. 24066603
`NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON PC
`111 West Tyler Street
`Longview, TX 75601
`Tel: (903) 757-8449
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-00508-JRG Document 109 Filed 04/28/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 5096
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
`
`CERTFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`On April 24
`
`impasse, leaving an open issue for the Court to resolve.
`
`/s/ Aaron S. Jacobs
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`/s/ Aaron S. Jacobs
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(A), the undersigned hereby certifies that the
`
`in this matter.
`
`/s/ Aaron S. Jacobs
`
`12
`
`