Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA-DTG
`
`v.
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`AMAZON’S OPPOSITION TO ALMONDNET’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`CERTAIN OPINIONS OF W. CHRISTOPHER BAKEWELL AND TO
`STRIKE PORTIONS OF HIS EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 2 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`IN"TRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`MR. BAKEWELL PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR THE SIMILARITIES AND
`DIFFERENCES OF EACH COMP ARABLE LICENSE ................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`. .................................... 2
`
`in Reasonable
`Disregarding these Licenses, AlmondNet Seeks
`Royalty Damages ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Mr. Bakewell Considers the Technical and Economic Comparability of Each
`License ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`E.
`
`Mr. Bakewell' s Comparable License Analysis Follows Precedent. ........................ 4
`
`III. MR. BAKEWELL MAY RELY ON DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER EXPERTS ............ 6
`
`IV. MR. BAKEWELL PROPERLY RELIES ON
`.................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................5
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................6
`
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. V. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`927 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................4
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Finalrod IP, LLC v. Endurance Lift Sols., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00189-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 4906217 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2021) ..........................7
`
`Glaukos Corp. v. Invantis, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-620, 2020 WL 10501852 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2020).................................................8
`
`Personalized Media Commn’s, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 662237 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2021) ............................7
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .............................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 .............................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 4 of 14
`
`Table of Exhibits and Docket Cites
`
`Dkt. 128-3
`
`Expert Report of Jim W. Bergman regarding damages, served June 16, 2023
`("Bergman Rep. ")
`
`Dkt. 129-3
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report Regarding Damages of W. Christopher Bakewell,
`served July 28, 2023 ("Bakewell Rep.")
`
`Ex. I
`
`Ex. 2
`
`Ex. 3
`
`Ex. 4
`
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`
`Ex. 7
`
`Ex. 8
`
`Patent Purchase and License A eement between
`
`Excerpts from the Rebuttal Expe1i Report of Dr. Herny Houh regarding non(cid:173)
`infringement, served July 28, 2023 ("Houh Reb. Rep.")
`
`Excerpts from the Deposition of Christopher Bakewell, taken August 8, 2023
`("Bakewell Dep.")
`
`Exce1pts from the Deposition of Herny Houh, Ph.D, taken August 15, 2023
`("Hmm Dep.")
`
`Exce1pts from the Expe1t Repo1i of Dr. Eric Koskinen Regarding
`Infringement, served June 16, 2023 ("Koskinen Rep.")
`
`111
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 5 of 14
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny AlmondNet’s motion to exclude certain of Mr. Bakewell’s opinions
`
`because AlmondNet’s complaints are without merit.
`
`First, AlmondNet’s criticisms of Mr. Bakewell’s reliance on licenses that cover the
`
`patents-in-suit and comparable technology lack bases in fact or law.
`
`
`
`
`
`. Mr. Bakewell
`
`followed the law by providing a detailed account of the similarities and differences between these
`
`actual licenses compared to a license arising out of a hypothetical negotiation between AlmondNet
`
`and Amazon. The law does not require Mr. Bakewell to go beyond that and tease out the individual
`
`value of the patents-in-suit in his analysis, as AlmondNet argues.
`
`Second, AlmondNet’s complaint that Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`. Dr. Houh disclosed the
`
`substance of these opinions in his reports. To the extent
`
`
`
`, AlmondNet could have, but chose not to explore them during its three
`
`depositions of Dr. Houh, and it will have yet another opportunity to do so at trial.
`
`Third, AlmondNet’s assertion that Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`. Dr. Houh explicitly
`
`stated that
`
`. Moreover, AlmondNet fails to provide
`
`technical support for its conclusory assertion that Amazon’s non-infringing alternative in fact
`
`infringes. Again, AlmondNet will have every opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Bakewell and Dr.
`
`Houh at trial regarding the substance and viability of Amazon’s non-infringing alternative.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 6 of 14
`
`II. MR. BAKE\VELL PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR THE SIMILARITIES AND
`DIFFERENCES OF EACH COMP ARABLE LICENSE
`
`A.
`
`AlmondNet has consistently
`
`B.
`
`Amazon
`
`(Bakewell Rep. ,i 275; Ex. 4, Excalibm Agmt.)
`
`(Bakewell Rep. ,i,i 280-81 ; Ex. 5, Houh Reh. Rep. ,nr 361-369).
`
`C.
`
`Disregarding these Licenses, AlmondNet Seeks $324 Million in Reasonable
`Royalty Damages.
`
`AlmondNet seeks a
`
`royalty in this case. (Dkt. 128-3, Bergman Rep. ,i 437.)
`
`In other words, according to AlmondNet's damages expert, the aims-length hypothetical
`
`negotiation would have resulted in Amazon agreeing to pay -
`
`times the amounts that
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 7 of 14
`
`AlmondNet had previously negotiated for
`
`. To reach that
`
`stratospheric figure, Mr. Bergman assumes that
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Bergman Rep. ¶ 366
`
`
`
`
`■
`D.
`
`Bakewell Considers Technical and Economic Comparability of Each License.
`
`In contrast, Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`. Mr. Bakewell’s analysis is
`
`objectively thorough. Any suggestion that his testimony at trial should be excluded as not based
`
`on “sufficient facts or data,” or as not the “product of reliable principles and methods” is facially
`
`belied by AlmondNet’s own summary recitation of it across no less than three pages of its brief.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Mot. at 2-4. Still, AlmondNet’s recitation is selective, and a fair and
`
`more complete summary of Mr. Bakewell’s opinion testimony accordingly follows.
`
`Mr. Bakewell’s
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Bakewell Rep. ¶ 146.) Mr. Bakewell first
`
`. (Id. ¶¶ 154–157, 191, 234, 280–283.) He then extensively
`
`, (id. ¶¶ 159–185, 193–217, 235–269, 285–300), to arrive at a
`
` applicable to the patents-in-suit for each license. (Id. ¶¶ 165, 197, 253, 289.)
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Bakewell explicitly
`
`. For each
`
`, Mr. Bakewell notes that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 8 of 14
`
`. (Id. ¶¶ 166, 198, 254; see also id.
`
`¶¶ 175, 183, 185, 216, 269.) And he states that the same is true for
`
`. (Id.
`
`¶ 290.) In other words, Mr. Bakewell’s calculations are conservative and overvalue the relevant
`
`patents because he attributes the full value of each license to them.
`
`Mr. Bakewell then
`
`. (Id. ¶ 313.) Yet, given the dearth of
`
`
`
`evidence in the record of incremental value, Mr. Bakewell
`
`. (Id. ¶ 322.)
`
`-
`
`Mr. Bakewell proceeds to consider the Georgia-Pacific factors, (id. ¶ 330),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
` (id. ¶ 340). Mr. Bakewell concludes that two Georgia-Pacific
`
`factors would
`
`, (id. ¶ 386),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Id. ¶ 391.)
`
`E. Mr. Bakewell’s Comparable License Analysis Follows Precedent.
`
`“Use of actual past licenses and negotiations to inform the hypothetical negotiation does
`
`not require identity of circumstances.” Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. V. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`
`927 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation and quotations omitted). “Instead, the prior licenses
`
`or settlements need to be ‘sufficiently comparable’ for evidentiary purposes and any differences
`
`in circumstances must be soundly accounted for.” Id. Thus, it is proper to rely on “allegedly
`
`comparable licenses [that] may cover more patents than are at issue in the action, include cross-
`
`licensing terms, [or] cover foreign intellectual property rights,” as long as “testimony relying on
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 9 of 14
`
`licenses [] account[s] for such distinguishing facts.” Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d
`
`1201, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). And, if such testimony is provided, “the fact that a
`
`license is not perfectly analogous generally goes to the weight of the evidence, not its
`
`admissibility.” Id.; see also Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d
`
`1312, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that the “degree of comparability” of licenses and “failure
`
`on the part of [the expert] to control for certain variables are factual issues best addressed by cross-
`
`examination and not by exclusion”).
`
`Mr. Bakewell’s opinions are fully in accord with Federal Circuit precedent.
`
`. (Bakewell Rep. ¶¶ 154–185, 191–217, 234–269, 285–300.) This includes repeatedly
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`F.3d at 1227, by
`
`198, 216, 254, 269, 290, 340, 391 (
`
`)
`
`” Ericsson, 773
`
`
`
`. (Bakewell Rep. ¶¶ 166, 175, 183, 185,
`
`
`
`
`
`AlmondNet mischaracterizes the law of apportionment in seeking to exclude Mr.
`
`Bakewell’s opinions. The principal of apportionment prevents patentees from attempting to
`
`improperly capture value from the accused products that are not attributable to the claimed
`
`inventions.1 See e.g., VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The
`
`law requires patentees to apportion the royalty down to a reasonable estimate of the value of its
`
`
`1 In fact, AlmondNet’s damages expert’s failure to apportion is another contributing factor to
`AlmondNet’s disproportional
` damages ask. See Amazon’s Motion to Exclude the
`Testimony of Bergman, Dkt. 126.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 10 of 14
`
`claimed technology.”) (emphasis added). It does not require the proponent of a comparable license
`
`covering more patents than those at issue to individually isolate the value of each patent, much
`
`less
`
`
`
`. Tellingly, AlmondNet cites no authority to support its
`
`novel interpretation of apportionment, much less a single case excluding an expert on that basis.
`
`(Mot. at 1–4.)
`
`And there is nothing improper about Mr. Bakewell opining that
`
`
`
` Id. at 3–4. Again, Mr. Bakewell was required to account for
`
`the
`
`, Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1227, and did so by
`
`. (See, e.g., Bakewell
`
`Rep. ¶ 391.) Mr. Bakewell does not, as AlmondNet implies, (Mot. at 4), opine that
`
`. He simply provides
`
`” VirnetX, 767 F.3d 1308 at 1328.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. MR. BAKEWELL MAY RELY ON DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER EXPERTS
`
` “Consistent with Rule 703, patent damages experts often rely on technical expertise
`
`outside of their field.” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. 757 F.3d 1286, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Mr. Bakewell
`
` As one example, he
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`” (Ex. 6, Bakewell Dep. at 208:5–7; Bakewell Rep. ¶¶ 282,
`
`280–281; Houh Reb. Rep. ¶¶ 361–369.) When AlmondNet explored this discussion during Mr.
`
`Bakewell’s deposition, Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`, (id. at 208:9–20).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 11 of 14
`
`AlmondNet complains that it does not “know[] why Houh believes that the licensed patents
`
`are of more importance,” Motion at 6 (emphasis in original), cannot discern the underlying basis
`
`for Mr. Bakewell’s statements about Amazon’s own patents, (id. at 7)2, and thus “cannot address
`
`these theories at trial,” (id. at 6). Yet that is only because AlmondNet chose not to ask Dr. Houh
`
`about these issues.
`
`AlmondNet had three opportunities to depose Dr. Houh to probe the content and substance
`
`of his conversation with Mr. Bakewell. (Ware Decl. ¶ 8.) It simply chose not to, even during the
`
`deposition it took after it filed this motion. (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Ex. 7, Houh Dep. at 30:4–32:16.) This is
`
`not a circumstance where “the normal way of dealing with this issue—deposing the technical
`
`expert about the conversation with the damages expert—did not work.” Finalrod IP, LLC v.
`
`Endurance Lift Sols., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00189-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 4906217, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct.
`
`20, 2021). Rather, AlmondNet thrice made a strategic decision to not question Dr. Houh about the
`
`information its Motion claims is necessary for it to prepare for trial. AlmondNet’s choice to forego
`
`discovery does not warrant precluding Mr. Bakewell
`
`
`
`-
`
`. Personalized Media Commn’s, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01366-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL
`
`662237 *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2021) (“Though [the expert’s] report may heavily cite to a
`
`discussion, which may not be easy to ‘fact check,’ that is not a reason to exclude [his] testimony.”).
`
`Fairly and fortunately for AlmondNet, and as Amazon respectfully submits should be
`
`determinative of this motion, AlmondNet will once again have a full and fair opportunity to cross-
`
`
`2 The Court should reject AlmondNet’s alternative argument that discussion of Amazon’s
`patents should be excluded at trial as prejudicial. (Mot. at 7.) Such considerations should be
`address through motions in limine, not Daubert, as AlmondNet’s cited authorities make clear.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 12 of 14
`
`examine Mr. Bakewell before the jury at trial.
`
`IV.
`
`In requesting to exclude Mr. Bakewell's non-infringing alternative opinion, AlmondNet
`
`does not identify any e1Tors by Mr. Bakewell himself. (Mot. at 7-8.) AlmondNet instead recites
`
`the same factual mischaracterizations and e1Toneous legal conclusions leveled in its Motion to
`
`Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Houh. (See Mot. at 7-8; Dkt. 134 at 1-4.) AlmondNet falsely
`
`asse1ts that Dr. Houh did not assume infringement when f01mulating his non-infringing alternative.
`
`(Mot. at 8). But
`
`(Houh Reh. Rep. ,r 354.) And these inc01Tect
`
`infringement theories do not include Amazon's non-infringing alternatives. AlmondNet also
`
`argues that Amazon's alternative is a "minor change" and would still infringe. (Mot. at 8.) But
`
`AlmondNet's technical expert, Dr. Koskinen, provides no explanation in his repo1t
`
`. (Ex. 8, Koskinen Rep. at ,r 284-287.)
`
`AlmondNet's only cited authority, Glaukos Corp. v. Invantis, Inc. , No. 18-cv-620, 2020
`
`WL 10501852, at *11-12 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2020), is readily distinguishable. There, the
`
`defendant's technical expe1t conceded that the alleged non-infringing alternative "would infringe
`
`some asse1ted claims." Id. at *12. Given that admission, the court shu ck defendant's damages
`
`expert's opinions based on that alleged non-infringing-alternative. Id. Here,
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Comt should deny AlmondNet's Motion in its entirety.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 13 of 14
`
`Dated: September 7, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Deron R. Dacus (TX Bar #00790553)
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: (903) 705-1117
`Fax: (903) 581-2543
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Ware
`J. David Hadden (CA Bar No. 176148)
`Email: dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov (CA Bar No. 215636)
`Email: sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ravi R. Ranganath (CA Bar No. 272981)
`Email: rranganath@fenwick.com
`Johnson K. Kuncheria (TX Bar No. 24070092)
`Email: jkuncheria@fenwick.com
`Johnathan L. Chai (CA Bar No. 339315)
`Email: jchai@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Tel: (650) 988-8500
`Fax: (650) 938-5200
`
`Eric B. Young, (CA Bar No. 318754)
`Email: eyoung@fenwick.com
`Dargaye Churnet (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: dchurnet@fenwick.com
`Christopher L. Larson (CA Bar No. 308247)
`Email: clarson@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Tel: (415) 875-2300
`
`Jeffrey A. Ware (WA Bar No. 43779)
`Email: jware@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`401 Union Street, 5th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Tel: (206) 389-4510
`
`Jessica Lin (NY Bar No. 5035860)
`Email: jessica.lin@fenwick.com
`Eric Menist (NY Bar No. 5721568)
`Email: emenist@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`902 Broadway, 18th Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 921-2001
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES
`LLC, and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 182 Filed 09/14/23 Page 14 of 14
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served with a true and correct copy of this document on September 7, 2023, via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV 5(a)(3). Additionally, this document and the
`
`attachments thereto were served via email on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeffrey A. Ware
`Jeffrey A. Ware
`
`
`
`10
`
`