Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 5900
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’ DAUBERT MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`THE OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S SURVEY EXPERT
`ANDREAS GROEHN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 5901
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`THE GROEHN REPORT .................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Products Considered in the Groehn Report ........................................................... 2
`B.
`Attributes Considered in the Groehn Report ......................................................... 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The Groehn Report Did Not Use Products Tied to the Facts of the Case ............. 6
`B.
`The Groehn Report Did Not Use Attributes Tied to GTP’s Technology .............. 9
`C.
`The Groehn Report’s Unreliable Methodologies Yielded “Irrational
`Results” ................................................................................................................ 12
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 5902
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 794328 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2014) ...................................12
`
`Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team,
`774 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................................7
`
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2536962 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) .......................13
`
`BMC Software, Inc. v. Servicenow, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-903-JRG, 2016 WL 367251 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2016) ...................................9, 12
`
`Bourjaily v. United States,
`483 U.S. 171 (1987) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00513-ADA, Dkt. 205 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2021) .................................................9
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...................................................................................................2, 5, 13, 15
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung,
`No. 6:09-cv-203-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 7563820 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2011) .........................5, 9
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Acer Am. Corp.,
`655 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .......................................................................................6
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................................7
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v .Google Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-02561-WHA, 2012 WL 850705 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) .......................... passim
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................1, 2
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 5903
`
`
`
`Page
`
`RSA Protective Techs., LLC v. Delta Sci. Corp.,
`No. 19-cv-06024-JAK, 2021 WL 4978462 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) ......................................7
`
`Scrum Alliance, Inc. v. Scrum, Inc.,
`No. 4:20-cv-227, 2021 WL 1691136 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2021) ..............................................5
`
`Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ......................................................................................................1, 5
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5904
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 21 PagelD #: 5904
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`It is fundamental that in patent litigation, a plaintiff's expert evidence must “carefully tie
`
`proof of damagesto the claimed invention.” ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). The expert report of Dr. Andreas Groehn (“Groehn Report’’) fails to do so. For
`
`example, Dr. Groehn administered a conjoint survey with questions about [ij smartphones, but
`
`none of them are accused of infringing the Patents-in-Suit and all but one were not yet released
`
`during the damagesperiod(i.e., prior to expiration of the last Patent-in-Suit in 2020). The only
`
`Samsung device included in the survey wastheee. whichis not accusedin this
`case and which was notreleased until 2021. Dr. Groehn also includedi
`ee “patented features” he tested, but neither relates
`
`to GTP’s technology because they do not determine or detect movement and/or a gesture. The
`
`result of such flawsis that the Groehn Report is not “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case” and
`
`should be excluded. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In addition, the Groehn Report is replete with methodological flaws. For example, Dr.
`
`Groehn surveyed respondents on|| “patented features” versus onlya “decoy,” which
`
`artificially forced respondents to focus on the “patented features.” This design flaw led to Dr.
`
`Groehn to conclude that the BE«patented features” account for mieSamsung’s profits on
`
`sales of accused smartphones. Such an “irrational result” warrants exclusion of the Groehn
`
`Report. Oracle Am., Inc. v .Google Inc., No. 10-cv-02561-WHA, 2012 WL 850705, at *10—11
`
`(N.D.Cal. Mar. 13, 2012).
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) move to exclude the opinions and
`
`testimony of Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC’s (“GTP”) survey expert, Dr. Groehn.
`
`The above examplesare just two reasons why the Groehn Report is untethered to the facts of this
`
`-|-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 5905
`
`
`
`case and thus not relevant to the trier of fact. If admitted, the opinions set forth in the Groehn
`
`Report will only serve to confuse the issues, and if relied on by the jury, will improperly “punish[]”
`
`Samsung beyond any infringement that might be found. ResQNet.com, 594 F.3d at 869. Samsung
`
`respectfully requests that the Court strike the Groehn Report its entirety and preclude Dr. Groehn
`
`from offering his opinions and testimony at trial.1
`
`II.
`
`THE GROEHN REPORT
`
`GTP accuses Samsung of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,933,431 (“’431 Patent”), 8,194,924
`
`(“’924 Patent”), 8,553,079 (“’079 Patent”), and 8,878,949 (“’949 Patent”) (collectively, “Patents-
`
`in-Suit”). Both in its infringement contentions and its technical expert’s report (“Occhiogrosso
`
`Report”), GTP alleged that 32 Samsung smartphones and tablets (“Accused Products”) infringe
`
`the patents. Ex. A at 2–18 (Infringement Contentions);2 Ex. B, ¶ 42 (Occhiogrosso Report).
`
`Similarly, GTP alleged that seven software-based features infringe when used by the Accused
`
`Products. Ex. B, ¶ 197.
`
`A.
`
`Products Considered in the Groehn Report
`
`
`
`
`
` the Groehn Report omits the Galaxy S5, S6, S6
`
`Edge, S6 Active, S6 Edge+, Note 5, S7, S7 Edge, Note 7, and S7 Active accused smartphones, and
`
`omits the Galaxy Tab Active, Tab A 8.0 (2015), Tab A 10.1 (2016), Tab S3, Tab A 8.0 (2017),
`
`Tab 8.0 (2019), and Tab A Kids 8.0 (2019) accused tablets. See Ex. D (Table Comparison); Exhibit
`
`
`1 Concurrent and commensurate with the filing of this motion, Samsung has filed a Daubert motion
`to preclude GTP’s damages expert, Mr. Kennedy, from offering opinions or testimony that rely on
`the Groehn Report.
`2 Unless otherwise stated, all exhibits referenced herein are attached to the Declaration of David
`M. Fox, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 5906
`
`K, Groehn Dep. at 33:12-34:12.
`
`Id.
`
`Ex. C, § 8 (emphasis added). The Groehn Report offers no survey
`
`results, analysis, or conclusions of any kind as to tablets. Ex. K, Groehn Dep. at 33:12-36:7 mm
`
`B.
`
`Attributes Considered in the Groehn Report
`
`Dr. Groehn’s survey (“Groehn Survey”) formed the basis for the opinions set forth in his
`
`@
`
`ss
`
`g>
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 5907
`
`wn“
`
`!
`
`!
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 5908
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (citation omitted). District courts are thus charged with
`
`a “gatekeeping role” to ensure that expert testimony admitted into evidence is both reliable and
`
`relevant to the case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. The proponent of expert evidence carries the burden
`
`of establishing admissibility “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bourjaily v. United States,
`
`483 U.S. 171, 174-76 (1987); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1310 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018). The trial court’s determination of whether the proponent meets this burden is reviewed for
`
`“abuse-of-discretion.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999). As with other
`
`expert evidence, surveys are subject to Daubert scrutiny. Scrum Alliance, Inc. v. Scrum, Inc., No.
`
`4:20-cv-227, 2021 WL 1691136, at *1, 3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2021). Survey evidence not “tied
`
`directly to Plaintiff’s technology confuses the issues and must be excluded.” Fractus, S.A. v.
`
`Samsung, No. 6:09-cv-203-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 7563820, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2011).
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 5909
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`The Groehn Report Did Not Use Products Tied to the Facts of the Case
`
`The Groehn Report did not use products tied to the facts of the case. Rather, the Groehn
`
`Survey asked respondents about products wholly unrelated to the present lawsuit, and that were
`
`not yet in existence during the period of alleged infringement. Exhibit K, Groehn Depo. at 33:12-
`
`34:12. Further, the Groehn Survey focused on smartphones only, entirely excluding tablets from
`
`consideration. Supra II.A. Each of these errors is fatal and provides an independent basis to
`
`exclude the Groehn Report. See Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`
`879 F.3d 1332, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The essential requirement is that the ultimate reasonable
`
`royalty award must be based on the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the end
`
`product.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
`
`Since serving its infringement contentions, GTP has “crystallized” its claims as relating to
`
`32 Accused Products. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Acer Am. Corp., 655 F. Supp. 2d 650, 653 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2009) (discussing the “high expectations as to plaintiffs’ preparedness” under the Patent
`
`Local Rules). GTP sought discovery on these 32 Accused Products, and Samsung provided ample
`
`discovery in turn. The Samsung
`
` is not one of these Accused Products. It was
`
`released after the Patents-in-Suit expired and is simply not relevant to this case. Dr. Groehn
`
`included the
`
` because it competes with the
`
`, which he selected
`
`as the benchmark smartphone for the survey
`
`
`
` Ex. C, ¶ 42; Ex. K, Groehn Depo. at 90:16-91:3. But the
`
` is also not “tied
`
`to the facts of the case.” The result is that Dr. Groehn surveyed respondents about smartphones
`
`not relevant to the instant action, and did not inquire about any of the “end products” in this case.
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co., 879 F.3d at 1348. The Groehn Report should be excluded on this basis alone.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 5910
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 11 of 21 PagelD #: 5910
`
`GTP presents Dr. Groehn as an expert whose opinions can assist the trier of fact to
`
`determine a reasonable royalty rate.? But for Dr. Groehn’s opinionsto help the jury determine a
`
`reasonable royalty rate,
`
`they must be germane to “the time infringement occurred.”
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 75 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
`
`See also Aqua Shield v. Inter Pool Cover Team, 774 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he core
`
`economic question is what the infringer. .
`
`. would have anticipated the profit-making potential of
`
`use of the patented technology to be”) (emphasis in original). Focusing on the “anticipated”profit
`
`of the patented technology prevents a reasonable royalty rate based on improper “after-the-fact
`
`assessment.” LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 75 (citation omitted).
`
`Here, the Groehn Report is based entirely on an “after-the-fact assessment.” All of the
`
`smartphonesin the Groehn Survey, except for hei. are “after-the-fact” because
`
`they had not yet been released during the period of alleged infringement.° The Groehn Report’s
`
`failure to account for any pre-expiration infringement renders it unreliable because, “as a legal
`
`construct, we seek to pin down howthe prospective infringement might have been avoided via an
`
`out-of-court business solution.” RSA Protective Techs., LLC v. Delta Sci. Corp., No. 19-cv-06024-
`
`JAK, 2021 WL 4978462, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) (citation omitted). Using “‘after-the-fact”
`
`analysis is not harmless error. Jd. Because the products used in the Groehn Surveyare nottied to
`
`the facts of the case, the Groehn Report should be excluded for that additional reason.
`
`Ex. E, § 314-15, Exhibit 3 (Kennedy Report).
`In the present action, the time of alleged infringement is April 2014 to July 2020(i.e., the date of
`first sale of the Galaxy S5 to the expiration date of the last Patent-in-Suit).
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 5911
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 12 of 21 PagelD #: 5911
`
`Finally, the Groehn Report addresses only smartphones, even though tablets make up
`
`nearly one-third of the Accused Products.’ See supra Section IIA.
`
`Indeed, the Groehn Survey
`
`did not even ask respondents whether they had purchaseda tablet:
`
`
`
`Ex. F at 11(Groehn Survey). This is problematic because consumers purchasetablets for different
`
`purposes than smartphones and at different price points. Tablets have different User Interfaces,
`
`i.e., different screen size, camera functionality, efc., which likely would have impacted the
`
`respondents’ valuation of the “patented features” when taking the survey. Because the Groehn
`
`Survey did not inquire in any way about consumerpreferencesas they relate to tablets, i.e., one-
`
`third of the Accused Products, any results derived from the survey cannotreliably be applied toall
`
`Accused Products in this case. Failing to account for one-third of the Accused Products renders
`
`the Groehn Report untethered to the facts of this case. The Groehn Report and related opinions
`
`and testimony should be excluded.®
`
`
`
`Ex. C,§
`
`7 8
`
`11.
`(pple v. Samsung, No.
`5:12-cv-00630-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014). See Ex. C, 429 n.14. Interestingly, there, Apple’s
`survey expert, Dr. Hauser, used two separate surveys—one for smartphones, and one fortablets.
`See No. 5:12-cv-00630, Dkt. 1182, § 19 (Ex. G). It is unclear why Dr. Groehn did not follow the
`
`reliable neused7 Dr. Hauser. - Ex. K, GroehnDepo.at40:18-23(
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 5912
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Groehn Report Did Not Use Attributes Tied to GTP’s Technology
`
`The Groehn Report selected attributes unconnected to GTP’s technology. See Fractus,
`
`S.A., 2011 WL 7563820, at *1 (“Survey evidence . . . not tied directly to Plaintiff’s technology
`
`confuses the issues and must be excluded.”). Here, one of the key claim terms is “gesture.” The
`
`claim limitation is found in three of the four Patents-in-Suit, and is likely to be crucial to the
`
`outcome of the litigation. The attributes selected by Dr. Groehn are not “tied to” this technology,
`
`and moreover, demonstrate a disregard of this Court’s Markman Order. The Groehn Report is
`
`thus “irrelevant” and inadmissible. See CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513-
`
`ADA, Dkt. 205 at 5 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2021) (Ex. H) (“Expert opinions that contradict or
`
`disregard a court’s claim constructions should be excluded.”); BMC Software, Inc. v. Servicenow,
`
`Inc., No. 2:14-cv-903-JRG, 2016 WL 367251, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2016) (striking portions
`
`of expert report that “contradict or deviate from” the Court’s Markman Order”).
`
`The term “gesture” has been central to the parties’ dispute since GTP filed its Complaint.
`
`See No. 2:21-cv-00041, Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 49, 64, 79 (alleging the ’431, ’949, and ’079 Patents describe a
`
`device or method “to control [devices] using gestures” or “related to determining gestures”). It
`
`became clear that this term would remain an issue after GTP served its infringement contentions,
`
`accusing certain features that have nothing to do with movement of infringing the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`See Dkt. 51 at 12 (“After a diligent investigation, Samsung is unable to discern how a human eye,
`
`a restaurant in the world, or a barcode . . . can perform a ‘gesture’ sufficient to satisfy the Asserted
`
`Claims.). See also Dkt. 84 at 1 n.1 (moving for protective order to limit discovery in part due to
`
`GTP’s definition of “gesture” to mean “movement, position, or state of a body part, including, but
`
`not limited to, the whole body, any part thereof, and facial expressions”).
`
`GTP’s refusal to concede that a “gesture” requires some movement (and some meaning)
`
`forced Samsung to seek construction of the claim term. See Dkt. 93 at 55 (“Plaintiff argued that
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 5913
`
`
`
`although movement may be required to form a gesture, a gesture itself does not necessarily require
`
`movement.”). The Court rejected GTP’s position and construed the term to mean “movement of
`
`hands or other body parts that convey meaning.” Dkt. 93 at 57. The Court also found that the
`
`Patents-in-Suit distinguish between “facial expressions” and “gestures,” and that “body parts” are
`
`separate and apart from “elements of a face.” Id. at 56.
`
`Now, by and through Dr. Groehn,9 GTP is attempting to improperly broaden the scope of
`
`its patent rights. According to the Groehn Report, the “patented features”
`
`
`
`infringe under the following scenarios:
`
`Ex. C, Tbl. 6. The definitions provided to respondents for each “attribute” and “level” help explain
`
`Table 6 and demonstrate how untethered the Groehn Report is from this Court’s construction of
`
`“gesture.” The text italicized below denotes the “attribute level” that triggers infringement:
`
`
`9 And by extension, Mr. Kennedy. See supra n. 1.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 5914
`
`
`
`Ex. F at 19–21 (emphasis added).
`
`As is clear from the italicized “attribute levels,” none of the features used in the Groehn
`
`Report relate to a “gesture” as construed by the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 Again, it is unclear what Samsung feature “Face Detection Autofocus” relates to. See supra n.4.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 5915
`
`
`
` Id at 19. This understanding of infringement is not “tied to” the Asserted Claims in
`
`this case. Similarly,
`
`Id. at 20. But
`
`
`
`i.e., “face
`
`movements,” are separate and apart from “gestures” in the Asserted Claims. Dkt. 93 at 56. Finally,
`
` does not detect or determine a “gesture,” but merely enables a
`
`smartphone to
`
` Ex. F at 21 . The Groehn
`
`Survey applied its own definition of “gesture” in clear contradiction to the Court’s Markman
`
`Order. The analysis and opinions set forth in the Groehn Report rely on and perpetuate this
`
`fundamental error. The Groehn Report should be excluded for this independent reason.
`
`C.
`
`The Groehn Report’s Unreliable Methodologies Yielded “Irrational Results”
`
`In addition to not being “sufficiently tied to the facts of the case,” the Groehn Survey
`
`employed crippling methodological flaws, making it unreliable and unhelpful to the jury. The
`
`Groehn Survey’s methodological failures included: (1) not providing a “principled basis” for
`
`selecting the surveyed “patented features;” and (2) omitting attributes that would have played an
`
`important role in real-world consumers’ preferences, thereby “artificially” inflating the value
`
`attributable to a “patented feature.” These two methodological failures led to “irrational results,”
`
`which requires that the Groehn Report be excluded in its entirety. See Oracle, 2012 WL 850705,
`
`at *10–11 (striking survey expert’s analysis that led to “irrational results”). Cf. Apple, Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 794328, at *16 n.10 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24,
`
`2014) (denying motion to exclude survey as “there are no irrational results that stem from the
`
`surveys in this case”).
`
`First, the Groehn Report does not articulate any criteria for choosing
`
` Ex. K, Groehn Depo. at 140:22-24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 5916
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 17 of 21 PagelD #: 5916
`
`ES
`
`Compare Oracle, 2012 WL 850705, at *10. Instead, the attributes and features were spoon-fed to
`
`Dr. Groehn by GTP. Consequently, the Groehn Report ignores the universe ofattributes truly
`
`relevant to consumer preferences for use as “decoys,” and arbitrarily selectsPo
`acon among the numerous purportedly “patented
`
`features” identified in the Occhiogrosso Report (and in GTP’s infringementcontentions). Ex. B,
`
`4 44;see also, e.g., Ex. J (Infringement Contentions ’924 Patent).!! Dr. Groehn’sfailure to provide
`
`any “principled basis for the features selected”—orwhy he selected1<nders his
`
`opinions unreliable. Compare Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP,
`
`2017 WL 2536962, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) (“The Court finds that Dr. Dhar provided a
`
`principled basis for the features selected here and that is all Daubert requires.”). The Groehn
`
`Report should be excluded accordingly.
`
`Second, the Groehn Survey was flawed becausethe attributes selected,Ps
`
`were purposely few in numberand omitted features and otherattributes that play an important role
`
`in consumers’ real-world preferences. See Oracle, 2012 WL 850705, at *10 (striking survey report
`
`for omitting features important to consumers). The survey did not include anytablets under the
`
`me
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 5917
`
`
`
` attribute. See supra Section II.A. The survey also included only a
`
` “decoy”
`
`attribute
`
`—meaning
`
` attributes relating to smartphone capability were
`
`the “patented features” being tested. Id. (finding survey unreliable because it “picked a low
`
`number [of attributes] to force participants to focus on the patented functionalities”).
`
`This fundamental methodological flaw mirrors that discussed in Oracle. There, the survey
`
`expert had conducted his own focus-group research, and learned of 39 features that real-world
`
`consumers would have considered when purchasing a smartphone. Oracle, 2012 WL 850705, at
`
`*10. But instead of testing those 39 features, the expert selected seven features, three of which
`
`were purportedly covered by the patented functionality. Id. The Oracle court criticized this
`
`method of selecting features because it artificially forced survey respondents to focus on certain
`
`“patented functionalities,” even if those functionalities were unimportant to the respondents. Id.
`
`The Oracle described why this method of selecting features undermined the survey’s reliability:
`
`In the real world, a consumer is faced with many features when making a decision
`to purchase, not artificially [sic] focused on a particular feature. This problem is
`exacerbated by the fact that important product features, such as battery life, WiFi,
`weight, and cellular network, all of which were not covered by the patented
`functionalities, were purposely left out and replaced with an arguably unimportant
`feature, voice dialing. Dr. Shugan had no reasonable criteria for choosing the four
`non-patented features to test; instead, he picked a low number to force participants
`to focus on the patented functionalities, warping what would have been their real-
`world considerations.
`
`Id. (emphasis added). Here, like in Oracle, the Groehn Survey was “artificially focused” on
`
`
`
`purportedly “patented features.” Even more egregious than the survey stricken in Oracle, the
`
`Groehn Survey included only
`
` decoy (as opposed to two in Oracle). The Groehn Survey
`
`thus forced survey respondents to focus on
`
`
`
`—obscure smartphone features—“warping” respondents’ real-world considerations.
`
`Cf. Ex. C, ¶ 31
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 5918
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 19 of 21 PagelD #: 5918
`
`Pe Like in Oracle, the Groehn Surveyhere “force[d]
`
`participants to focus on the patented features,” undermining any chance of mimicking a real-world
`
`purchasing scenario. The Groehn Report should likewise be stricken.
`
`Not surprisingly, the above methodological flaws led to “irrational results” in the Groehn
`
`Report, which is further evidence of the survey’s—andthus the report’s—aunreliability. Because
`
`the Groehn Survey forced respondents to focus primarily on obscure smartphone functionality
`
`(rather than other attributes representing “real-world preferences,”like battery life or screen size,
`
`for example) respondents’ answers did not represent real-world preferences. This is clear when
`
`assessing the Groehn Report’s conclusion that withit Samsung’s
`smartphoneprofits would decrease by ij. See Ex. C, Tbl. 8Po
`
`2? 2feos
`
`methodological flaws in the Groehn Report yielded “irrational results” that wildly overvalued the
`
`“patented features” tested. The Groehn Report and any related opinions and testimony should be
`
`excluded for this additional and independentreason.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant its Daubert
`
`motion to exclude the Groehn Report and Dr. Groehn’s related opinions and testimony.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 5919
`
`DATED: December 1, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly (TX Bar No. 00795077)
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`Radhesh Devendran (pro hac vice)
`radheshdevendran@paulhastings.com
`Boris S. Lubarsky (pro hac vice)
`borislubarsky@paulhastings.com
`David M. Fox (pro hac vice)
`davidfox@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Facsimile: 202-551-1705
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Robert Laurenzi
`robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX Bar No. 24001351)
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 147 Filed 12/03/21 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 5920
`
`
`
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rules CV-7(h) and (i), counsel for the Samsung Defendants met and
`
`
`
`
`
`conferred with counsel for the Plaintiff on November 29, 2021 in a good faith attempt to resolve
`
`the matters raised by this motion. Plaintiff stated it opposes the relief requested by this motion
`
`and no agreement was reached. Thus, these discussions have conclusively ended in an impasse
`
`and leave an open issue for the Court to resolve.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on December 1, 2021. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) and by email.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`I hereby certify that under Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), the foregoing document is filed under
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order entered in this matter.
`
`
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`