Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 14051
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`NO. 2:21-CV-0186-JRG-RSP
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ET AL.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`THE OPINIONS OF MR. JIM W. BERGMAN
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 14052
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Products............................................................................................. 3
`
`Mr. Bergman’s September 19, 2022 and November 18, 2022 Expert
`Reports Regarding Damages ................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Income Approach Analysis With Respect to the
`DOMA Patents ............................................................................................ 3
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Income Approach Analysis With Respect to the
`VAD Patents ............................................................................................... 6
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Conclusions Regarding Damages ...................................... 8
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. MR. BERGMAN’S DAMAGES OPINIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ...................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions Should Be Excluded Because Mr.
`Bergman Unreliably Assumed That Jawbone Would Receive
`
`
` ........................ 9
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions With Respect to the DOMA Patents
`Should Be Excluded Because Mr. Bergman Failed to Apportion
`
` ................................................................ 11
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions Regarding Smartphones Should Be
`Excluded Because Mr. Bergman Unreliably Based His Opinions on
`
` ................................................................................ 12
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions Should Be Excluded Because Mr.
`
`Bergman Unreliably Calculated Incremental Profits Based on
` ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions Should Be Excluded Because Mr.
`Bergman Unreliably Calculated Incremental Profits Based on
`
` ........................................ 15
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 14053
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. CareFusion Corp.,
`No. 15-C-9986, 2022 WL 952276 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022) ..................................................12
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...............................................................................................................1, 8
`
`IP Innovation, LLC v. Red Hat, Inc.,
`705 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D. Tex. 2010) .....................................................................................14
`
`Johnson v. Arkema, Inc.,
`685 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc.,
`482 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Looksmart Grp., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-04709-JST, 2019 WL 4009263 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019)......................................11
`
`MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................12
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................9
`
`Salazar v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-01096-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 1783157 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2018) ......................10
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 2:14-CV-11-JRG, 2015 WL 5895401 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2015) .......................................10
`
`Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`33 F.4th 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................14
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................9
`
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-00220-MLH-KSX, 2020 WL 2543814 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2020)........................10
`
`Versata Software Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-153 CE, 2011 WL 4017939 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2011) .......................................14
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 14054
`
`
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................9, 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ......................................................................................................1, 8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 14055
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Samsung”) move to exclude the opinions of Jawbone Innovation, LLC’s
`
`(“Jawbone”) damages expert Mr. Jim W. Bergman. Ex. 1 (Mr. Bergman’s September 19, 2022
`
`report); Ex. 2 (Mr. Bergman’s November 18, 2022 corrected report).1
`
`Jawbone accuses certain Samsung smartphones and/or earbuds of infringing two
`
`categories of patents: (1) the DOMA patents2 (smartphones and earbuds); and (2) the VAD
`
`patents3 (earbuds) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Based on the income approach, the
`
`market approach, and the Georgia-Pacific factors, Mr. Bergman concludes that the parties to the
`
`hypothetical negotiation
`
`
`
`. In reaching this conclusion, however, Mr. Bergman’s report is replete with
`
`methodological flaws that render his damages opinions unreliable. The Court should exclude Mr.
`
`Bergman’s opinions because they do not satisfy the reliability requirements of Federal Rule of
`
`Evidence 702 or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`First, Mr. Bergman’s income approach analysis concludes that the incremental profit
`
`allocable to the DOMA and VAD patents
`
` Yet, following a Georgia-Pacific analysis, Mr. Bergman ultimately concludes that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The changes to Mr. Bergman’s corrected report do not affect the bases for exclusion discussed
`in this motion. Instead, the changes to the corrected report relate to amending the alleged
`damages period for the DOMA patents to begin on October 26, 2015, which is six years before
`Jawbone first asserted the DOMA patents in an amended complaint filed October 26, 2021. See
`Ex. 2, ¶¶ 13, 39, 39 n.31–32, 41, 372, 394, 404, 405. Citations in this motion are to Mr.
`Bergman’s November 18, 2022 corrected report, but they apply equally to Mr. Bergman’s
`September 19, 2022 report.
`2 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,503,691, 10,779,080, and 11,122,357.
`3 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,019,091 and 8,467,543.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 14056
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, Mr. Bergman’s damages opinions regarding the DOMA patents should be
`
`excluded because, as explained in more detail below, Mr. Bergman’s income approach
`
`analysis—which is a fundamental input to his ultimate damages opinion—failed to apportion the
`
`incremental profit
`
`.
`
`Third, Mr. Bergman’s damages opinions regarding smartphones (which are only accused
`
`of infringing the DOMA patents) should be excluded because Mr. Bergman’s income approach
`
`analysis is unreliably based on
`
`
`
`Fourth, Mr. Bergman’s damages opinions should be excluded because, in performing his
`
`income approach analysis, Mr. Bergman unreliably calculated incremental profits based on
`
`
`
`
`
`. As a result, the alleged
`
`incremental profits that Mr. Bergman calculates are
`
` unreliable.
`
`Fifth, Mr. Bergman’s damages opinions should be excluded because, in performing his
`
`income approach analysis, Mr. Bergman unreliably calculated incremental profits based on
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 14057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Bergman’s failure to account for this fact renders the
`
`alleged incremental profits he calculates
`
` unreliable.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Accused Products
`
`Jawbone accuses certain Samsung earbuds (i.e., the Galaxy Buds+, Buds Live, Buds Pro,
`
`and Buds 2) and smartphones of infringing the DOMA patents and certain Samsung earbuds
`
`(i.e., the Galaxy Buds Live, Buds Pro, and Buds 2) of infringing the VAD patents.
`
`B. Mr. Bergman’s September 19, 2022 and November 18, 2022 Expert Reports
`Regarding Damages
`
`Mr. Bergman served his expert report regarding damages on September 19, 2022. Ex. 1.
`
`Mr. Bergman subsequently served a corrected report on November 18, 2022. Ex. 2. In a section
`
`titled “Incremental Profit Associated with the Patents-in-Suit” (Ex. 2, § XIV.B.ii), Mr. Bergman
`
`stated that “[i]n order to capture the incremental profit associated with the patents-in-suit,” he
`
`“performed an economic analysis
`
`
`
`
`
`” Ex. 2, ¶ 200. Mr. Bergman’s analysis with respect to the DOMA patents and
`
`VAD patents is summarized below.
`
`1.
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Income Approach Analysis With Respect to the
`DOMA Patents
`
`a.
`
`Earbuds
`
`Mr. Bergman
`
`
`
`. Mr. Bergman’s income
`
`approach with respect to earbuds accused of infringing the DOMA patents is summarized below:
`
`3
`
`

`

`•
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 14058
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 14059
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Smartphones
`
`Turning to the smartphones accused of infringing the DOMA patents, Mr. Bergman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:
`14060
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Income Approach Analysis With Respect to the VAD
`Patents
`
`Mr. Bergman performed a similar analysis for the VAD patents as described above—
`
`except Mr. Bergman instead
`
`
`
`. Mr. Bergman’s approach
`
`is summarized below:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:
`14061
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:
`14062
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Bergman’s Conclusions Regarding Damages
`
`As noted above, Mr. Bergman concluded that his income approach indicated that the
`
`parties to the hypothetical negotiation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Bergman stated that the “final determination of a royalty rate takes into account both
`
`the income approach and the market approach, as well as the impact of those Georgia-Pacific
`
`factors not considered in either the income approach or the market approach.” Id., ¶ 396. Mr.
`
`Bergman purported to perform a Georgia-Pacific analysis, arguing that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 702 requires the trial judge to “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or
`
`evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589. “The reliability
`
`prong mandates that expert opinion ‘be grounded in the methods and procedures of science and
`
`be more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief.’” Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d
`
`452, 459 (5th Cir. 2012) (alteration omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 702. Expert testimony “built on
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:
`14063
`
`
`
`speculation” and assumptions unsupported by any facts or data is unreliable and inadmissible.
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013). To be admissible, an expert’s methodology “must be reliable at each and every step.”
`
`Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 355 (5th Cir. 2007). As to the relevance
`
`prong, the proponent of an expert’s opinion must “demonstrate that the expert’s ‘reasoning or
`
`methodology can be properly applied to the facts in issue.’” Johnson, 685 F.3d at 459.
`
`IV. MR. BERGMAN’S DAMAGES OPINIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
`
`As discussed below, Mr. Bergman’s analysis suffers from methodological flaws. As such,
`
`Mr. Bergman’s resulting damages opinions are based on “fundamentally flawed” premises and
`
`should be excluded. See, e.g., Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“‘Beginning from a fundamentally flawed premise and adjusting it based on legitimate
`
`considerations specific to the facts of the case nevertheless results in a fundamentally flawed
`
`conclusion.’”) (quoting Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011)).
`
`A. Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions Should Be Excluded Because Mr.
`Bergman Unreliably Assumed That Jawbone Would Receive
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Bergman concluded that the incremental profit associated with the DOMA patents is
`
` and the incremental profit associated with the VAD patents is
`
`. See
`
`also Ex. 2, ¶ 394. This results in a combined alleged incremental profit allocable to the DOMA
`
`and VAD patents of
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Bergman then purported to perform a Georgia-Pacific analysis, arguing that
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:
`14064
`
`
`
`. Thus, for the DOMA patents, Mr. Bergman opines that at the hypothetical
`
`negotiation, the parties would know that the profit allocable to the DOMA patents is
`
`
`
`
`
`combination of the DOMA and VAD patents, Mr. Bergman opines that the parties would know
`
`that the allocable profit is
`
`
`
`
`
` Further, for the
`
` As such, Mr. Bergman’s opined royalty rates award Jawbone
`
` Thus, Mr.
`
`Bergman’s damages opinions should be excluded because Mr. Bergman failed to account for the
`
`fact that, to the extent claimed profits attributable to the Patents-in-Suit are identified, such
`
`profits generally are shared between the parties at the hypothetical negotiation (through the
`
`negotiation dynamics, and reflecting their relative bargaining positions). This principle is well-
`
`established, and the analysis typically turns on how to divide the incremental profits between the
`
`parties. See, e.g., SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2:14-CV-11-JRG, 2015 WL 5895401, at *3
`
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2015) (declining to exclude expert opinion that “isolate[d] the value of
`
`patented feature, separate[d] it from the value of the unpatented features, subtract[ed] any costs
`
`attributable to [Defendant], and then use[d] the Georgia–Pacific factors to estimate how the
`
`Plaintiff and Defendants would split any such incremental profit at the hypothetical
`
`negotiation table”) (emphasis added); Salazar v. HTC Corp., No. 2:16-CV-01096-JRG-RSP,
`
`2018 WL 1783157, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2018) (declining to exclude expert opinion because
`
`the expert “did not start with an arbitrary [incremental profit] split and then adjust (or not
`
`adjust) that split based on his analysis”) (bold added; italics in original); Vaporstream, Inc. v.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:
`14065
`
`
`
`Snap Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-MLH-KSX, 2020 WL 2543814, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2020)
`
`(excluding expert’s opinion that incremental profits would be split 50/50 between the parties
`
`because expert failed to explain “why a 40/60, 30/70, 20/80 or any other split would not have
`
`been appropriate”); Looksmart Grp., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-cv-04709-JST, 2019 WL
`
`4009263, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019) (criticizing Plaintiff’s “assumption that the negotiation
`
`would start with all of the avoided costs going to [Plaintiff]” and noting that, if that approach
`
`were applied “to incremental profits, it would flunk the Virnetx test”); Virnetx, 767 F.3d at 1331
`
`(rejecting the invocation of a 50/50 profit split as a starting point based on the Nash Bargaining
`
`Solution because it was insufficiently grounded in the specific facts of the case).
`
`Indeed, Mr. Bergman’s opinion that the parties would agree to
`
`opinion that Jawbone would only retain
`
` contradicts his own
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions With Respect to the DOMA Patents
`Should Be Excluded Because Mr. Bergman Failed to Apportion
`
`
`
`With respect to Mr. Bergman’s income approach analysis for the DOMA patents, Mr.
`
`Bergman assumed that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:
`14066
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, Mr. Bergman’s failure to apportion
`
` renders his opinions unreliable. Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. CareFusion Corp., No.
`
`15-C-9986, 2022 WL 952276, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022) (“[F]ailure to properly apportion is
`
`a consideration for whether the expert’s opinion is sufficiently reliable.”) (citing MLC
`
`Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).
`
`C. Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions Regarding Smartphones Should Be
`Excluded Because Mr. Bergman Unreliably Based His Opinions on
`
`
`
`. With respect to earbuds, Mr. Bergman concluded that incremental profit
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with the DOMA patents is
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:
`14067
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Because Mr. Bergman’s DOMA patent royalty analysis with respect to smartphones is
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:
`14068
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:
`14069
`
`
`
`reasonable royalty damages, in part because the expert made the “blatant oversight” of failing to
`
`factor out of his proffered royalty base products that did not feature the claimed invention).
`
`E. Mr. Bergman’s Damages Opinions Should Be Excluded Because Mr.
`Bergman Unreliably Calculated Incremental Profits Based on
`
`
`Mr. Bergman’s incremental profit analysis relating to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a principled reason for his decision
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` During his deposition, Mr. Bergman could not provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Mr. Bergman’s
`
`resulting calculation of incremental profits is thus
`
` unreliable, and should be
`
`excluded.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court exclude Mr.
`
`Bergman’s damages opinions.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:
`14070
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Jin-Suk Park
`Jin-Suk Park
`jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`Paul Margulies
`paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 942-5555
`
`Patrick C. Reidy
`patrick.reidy@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Telephone: (312) 583-2424
`Facsimile: (312) 583-2360
`
`Ryan M. Nishimoto
`ryan.nishimoto@arnoldporter.com
`Daniel S. Shimell
`daniel.shimell@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 243-4000
`Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
`
`-and-
`
`Melissa Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 259 Filed 11/29/22 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:
`14071
`
`
`
`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 22, 2022 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/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 23, 2022, I caused a copy of the
`
`foregoing to be served via email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`17
`
`