throbber
Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 131 PageID #: 35469
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 131 PageID #: 35469
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 131 PageID #: 35470
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE
`COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`Case No: 13-919-LPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF ROY WEINSTEIN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 131 PageID #: 35471
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`VII.
`
`CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... i
`TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ iv
`I.
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`Assignment ......................................................................................................................... 2
`III.
`Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................. 3
`IV.
`Background ......................................................................................................................... 4
`A. Arendi S.A.R.L. .................................................................................................... 4
`B. Google .................................................................................................................. 4
`Patent-in-Suit ...................................................................................................................... 6
`i. U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 .................................................................................... 6
`ii.
`Invalidity Challenges ............................................................................................ 7
`Technology Background ..................................................................................................... 8
`Infringement Contentions and Accused Products ............................................................. 10
`A. Accused Products ............................................................................................... 10
`B. Asserted Claims .................................................................................................. 11
`VIII. Analytical Framework for Damages ................................................................................. 11
`A. Hypothetical Negotiation Framework ................................................................ 12
`B. Hypothetical Negotiation between Arendi and Google ...................................... 17
`C. Damages Period .................................................................................................. 17
`Georgia-Pacific Analysis .................................................................................................. 17
`Georgia-Pacific No. 1: The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing
`of the Patent-in-Suit, proving or tending to prove an
`established royalty .................................................................. 18
`a. Microsoft Corporation ........................................................................................ 18
`b. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. ............................................................................ 20
`c. Microsoft Mobile, Inc. ........................................................................................ 21
`
`IX.
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 131 PageID #: 35472
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`d. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 22
`Georgia-Pacific No. 2: The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents
`comparable to the Patent-in-Suit ............................................. 27
`Georgia-Pacific No. 3: The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-
`exclusive; or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of
`territory or with respect to whom the manufactured
`product may be sold ................................................................ 29
`Georgia-Pacific No. 4: The licensor’s established policy and marketing program
`to maintain his patent monopoly by not licensing others
`to use the invention or by granting licenses under special
`conditions designed to preserve that monopoly ...................... 30
`Georgia-Pacific No. 5: The commercial relationship between the licensor and
`licensee, such as, whether they are competitors in the
`same territory in the same line of business; or whether
`they are inventor and promoter ............................................... 30
`Georgia-Pacific No. 6: The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting
`sales of other products of the licensee; that existing value
`of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of
`his non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative
`or convoyed sales .................................................................... 31
`Georgia-Pacific No. 7: The duration of the patent and the term of the license ............ 32
`Georgia-Pacific No. 8: The established profitability of the products made under
`the Patent-In-Suit, their commercial success, and their
`current popularity .................................................................... 33
`i. Established Profitability ..................................................................................... 33
`ii. Commercial Success and Current Popularity ..................................................... 34
`Georgia-Pacific No. 9: The utility and advantages of the patent property over the
`old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for
`working out similar results ...................................................... 36
`Georgia-Pacific No. 10: The nature of the patented invention; the character of the
`commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by
`the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the
`invention ................................................................................. 36
`i. Patented Benefits ................................................................................................ 36
`ii. Conclusions Regarding Non-Infringing Alternatives ......................................... 40
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 131 PageID #: 35473
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`Georgia-Pacific No. 11: The extent to which the infringer has made use of the
`invention; and any evidence probative of the value of
`that use .................................................................................... 41
`Georgia-Pacific No. 12: The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may
`be customary in the particular business or in comparable
`businesses to allow for the use of the invention or
`analogous inventions ............................................................... 42
`Georgia-Pacific No. 13: The portion of the realizable profit that should be
`credited to the invention .......................................................... 42
`Georgia-Pacific No. 14: The opinion testimony of qualified experts ............................ 47
`Georgia-Pacific No. 15: The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a
`licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon
`(at the time the infringement began) if both had been
`reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement ....... 47
`i. Form of the Royalty ............................................................................................ 48
`ii. Reasonable Royalty ............................................................................................ 50
`(1) Context of the Agreements .................................................................. 50
`(2) Rates agreed to by Arendi .................................................................... 51
`(3) Rates agreed to by Google ................................................................... 53
`(4) Geographic Scope of Patent Coverage ................................................. 53
`(5) Timing and Duration of the License .................................................... 53
`(6) Established Profitability and Commercial Success .............................. 54
`(7) Licensed Technology and Patented Benefits ....................................... 55
`(8) Conclusions .......................................................................................... 55
`Quantification of Damages ............................................................................................... 59
`Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 60
`Prejudgment Interest ......................................................................................................... 61
`
`X.
`XI.
`XII.
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 131 PageID #: 35474
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`TABLES
`
`Table 1: Asserted Claims ........................................................................................................... 11
`Table 2: Unit Sales of Accused Google Devices ....................................................................... 34
`
`Table 3: Downloads of Accused Google Apps ......................................................................... 35
`Table 4: Sales of Accused Google Devices ............................................................................... 41
`
`Table 5: Reasonable Royalty Damages .................................................................................... 59
`Table 6: Reasonable Royalty Damages .................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 7 of 131 PageID #: 35475
`
`
`
`I.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am an economist and Managing Director at Micronomics, an economic
`
`research and consulting firm located in Los Angeles, California. I have been engaged in economic
`
`research and consulting for approximately 50 years.
`
`2.
`
`A significant portion of my professional experience has involved the
`
`valuation of intellectual property and the calculation of patent infringement damages. My
`
`publications dealing with intellectual property rights and the calculation of patent damages have
`
`appeared in les Nouvelles, the Federal Circuit Bar Journal, the Journal of the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office Society, The Journal of Law and Technology, and The Licensing Journal. I also
`
`have spoken on issues relating to economics and economic theory before professional groups,
`
`including the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the National Association of Attorneys General,
`
`the American Bar Association, the Steering Committee of the California Society of Certified
`
`Public Accountants, and the Midwest Economics Association. I have appeared as a panelist on
`
`several occasions at the Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law at Plano, Texas to speak
`
`on subjects relating to the calculation of patent damages. I also was asked to speak on “Taming
`
`Complex Intellectual Property Compensation Problems” at the TTI Vanguard Conference on
`
`Taming Complexity in Washington, D.C., and have delivered lectures dealing with patents and
`
`intellectual property at Peking University in Beijing, China and the Baruch College of City
`
`University of New York.
`
`3.
`
`Companies with whom I have consulted on patent damages issues include
`
`Intel, USAA, Ericsson, Barr Laboratories, eBay, Mitsubishi, Hynix, VirnetX, and Southern
`
`California Gas Company. Prior engagements include the valuation of semiconductor patents,
`
`telecommunications patents, and other intellectual property used in technology markets and high
`
`technology applications.
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 8 of 131 PageID #: 35476
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Exhibit 1 sets forth biographical information, including a list of matters in
`
`which I have given testimony in the past four years, either at deposition or at trial. My billing rate
`
`for work on this matter is $750 per hour. Work on this assignment has also been performed by
`
`members of my staff, acting under my direction.
`
`II.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”) to calculate
`
`damages adequate to compensate Arendi for infringement by Google LLC (“Google”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,917,843 (the “’843 patent”). I understand that I also may be asked to review expert
`
`reports submitted by experts retained by Google, and if appropriate, may respond to their opinions.
`
`6.
`
`Arendi originally brought this action against Google on May 22, 2013 in
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.1 While I understand that the infringement
`
`allegations are a matter of contention, I have been asked to assume that the ’843 patent (the “Patent-
`
`in-Suit”) is valid, enforceable and infringed by Google.
`
`7.
`
`In conducting my analysis, I have reviewed and considered the Patent-in-
`
`Suit, financial information, license agreements, presentations, business records, and other
`
`documents produced by Google and third parties. I also have reviewed and considered pleadings,
`
`deposition testimony, written discovery, and other information furnished by counsel, and
`
`independently obtained trade press, and other publicly available information. I have spoken with
`
`Atle Hedløy, Dr. William Wecker, and Dr. Trevor Smedley in connection with my work on this
`
`matter. A summary of information I have considered in connection with my assignment is set
`
`forth at Exhibit 2.
`
`
`Complaint, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 13-919-LPS, May 22, 2013.
`
`1
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 9 of 131 PageID #: 35477
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`8.
`
`My understanding is that additional discovery or other information may be
`
`obtained in this case. Accordingly, the results set forth herein are subject to modification as my
`
`investigation continues.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
`
`9.
`
`In the event that the Patent-in-Suit is found to be valid, and infringed by
`
`Google, Arendi is entitled to damages adequate to compensate for infringement, but in no event
`
`less than a reasonable royalty.2 In the context of litigation, a reasonable royalty typically reflects
`
`the amount that a willing licensee would have agreed to pay and a willing licensor would have
`
`agreed to accept for a license to the Patent-in-Suit assuming both parties had access to all relevant
`
`information, had been reasonable in trying to reach an agreement, and had agreed that the Patent-
`
`in-Suit is valid and infringed without a license. In that connection, my analysis includes an
`
`assessment of factors that would have been considered by the negotiating parties had they
`
`participated in a hypothetical negotiation at the time infringement commenced.
`
`10.
`
`I have calculated reasonable royalty damages due Arendi on accused sales
`
`and downloads of Google products.
`
`11.
`
`Assuming that Arendi is entitled to reasonable royalty damages based on
`
`infringement of accused Google products (e.g., U.S. sales and downloads), liability would begin
`
`on March 29, 2011, the date the ’843 patent issued.3 I have concluded that damages adequate to
`
`compensate Arendi for infringement by Google are at least
`
`million through expiration of
`
`the Patent-in-Suit.
`
`
`The Patent Act of 1952 (35 U.S.C. § 284).
`U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843.
`
`2
`3
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 10 of 131 PageID #: 35478
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`12. My analysis reflects a) the amount that Arendi, as the hypothetical licensor,
`
`would have been willing to accept in exchange for granting a non-exclusive license to the Patent-
`
`in-Suit, and b) the amount Google would have been willing to pay given:
`
`1) The Patent-in-Suit would have been understood to be valid,
`enforceable, and infringed;
`2) Google’s willingness to pay for access to intellectual
`property;
`3) the popularity of the accused products;
`4) absence of non-infringing alternatives to the Patent-in-Suit;
`and
`5) my analysis of the Georgia-Pacific Factors.
`
`If asked, I am prepared to calculate pre- and post-judgment interest.
`
`13.
`
`IV.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`14.
`
`Arendi is a corporation organized under the laws of Luxembourg.4 It was
`
`formed in 2009 to manage Arendi’s intellectual property.5
`
`B.
`
`Google
`
`15.
`
`Google incorporated in 1998 and its stated mission is “to organize the
`
`world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”6 It is the largest subsidiary of
`
`Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”), a holding company created in 2015, and Google is the only reportable
`
`segment operating within Alphabet.7 Google’s products and services include various Google Web
`
`Search functions; applications such as Gmail, Chrome, Hangouts Chat, Google Play, Drive, Maps,
`
`
`Complaint, Arendi S.A.R.L., v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 13-919-LPS, May 22, 2013.
`4
`Deposition of Atle Hedløy (Arendi) October 29, 2019, pp. 158-159.
`5
`6 Google website, “About” (https://about.google/).
`Google website, “How we started and where we are today” (https://about.google/our-story/).
`Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, pp. 3, 8, and 26.
`
`7
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 11 of 131 PageID #: 35479
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`and YouTube; the Android software platform; and mobile phone applications and software.8
`
`Google claims that its brand is “one of the most recognized in the world.”9
`
`16.
`
`Google generates most of its revenue through advertising, such as
`
`delivering relevant ads targeted at its users and assisting advertisers with marketing campaigns.10
`
`Google also generates revenue from the sale of digital content through Google Play, sales of
`
`hardware devices, and the use of its cloud services.11
`
`17.
`
`As of December 31, 2018, Alphabet had 98,771 employees.12 Alphabet is
`
`headquartered in Mountain View, California.13 Alphabet owns and leases business space and
`
`research and development facilities around the world and operates and owns data centers in the
`
`U.S., Europe, South America, and Asia.14
`
`18.
`
`Revenue from Google’s business operations amounted to $136.2 billion for
`
`its fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.15 Google had revenue of $89.9 billion and $110.4 billion
`
`for the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years, respectively.16 Google accounted for at least 99.6 percent of
`
`Alphabet’s total revenue for each of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 fiscal years.17
`
`19.
`
`Alphabet generated revenue of $90.3 billion, $110.9 billion, and $136.8
`
`billion in fiscal years 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. It realized an operating margin of 26.3
`
`
`Google website, “Our products” (https://about.google/products/).
`8
`Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31 2018, p. 4.
`
`9 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31 2018, p. 3.
`10 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31 2018, pp. 4-5.
`11 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31 2018, p. 5.
`12 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, p. 6.
`13 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, p. 20.
`14 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, p. 20.
`15 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, p. 27.
`16 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, p. 27.
`17 Alphabet Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, p. 27.
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 12 of 131 PageID #: 35480
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`percent, 23.6 percent, and 19.2 percent during those years. A summary of Alphabet’s financial
`
`performance is set forth at Exhibit 3.
`
`V.
`
`PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`i.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843
`
`20.
`
`The ’843 patent is titled “Method, Systems and Computer Readable
`
`Medium for Addressing Handling from a Computer Program.”18 It issued on March 29, 2011,
`
`from an application that was filed on July 29, 2008, and claims priority to an application that was
`
`filed on November 10, 1998.19 It is my understanding that the ’843 patent expired on November
`
`10, 2018.20
`
`21.
`
`The abstract of the ’843 patent states:
`
`A method, system and computer readable medium for providing for
`providing a function item, such as a key, button, icon, or menu, tied
`to a user operation in a computer, whereby a single click on the
`function item in a window or program on a computer screen, or one
`single selection in a menu in a program, initiates retrieval of name
`and addresses and/or other person or company related information,
`while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g., a
`word processor. The click on the function item initiates a program
`connected to the button to search a database or file available on or
`through the computer, containing the person, company or address
`related data, in order to look up data corresponding to what the user
`types, or partly typed, e.g., name and/or address in the word
`processor, the correct data from the database, data related to the
`typed data, e.g., the name of the person, company, or the traditional
`or electronic address, or other person, or company, or address
`related data, and alternatively the persons, companies, or addresses,
`
`
`
`18 U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843.
`19 U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843.
`20
`For U.S. patent applications filed after June 8, 1995, the patent term is typically 20 years from the filing date of
`the earliest U.S. application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications). The application
`that issued as the ’843 patent was filed on July 29, 2008, however, the application for the ’843 patent claims
`priority to an application filed November 10, 1998. Hence, I understand that the ’843 patent expired on
`November 10, 2018, which is 20 years after the filing date of U.S. patent 6,323,853.
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 13 of 131 PageID #: 35481
`
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`are displayed and possibly entered into the word processor, if such
`related data exists.21
`
`ii.
`
`Invalidity Challenges
`
`22.
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) was signed into law on
`
`September 16, 2011. Among other modifications to patent law in the United States, the AIA
`
`instituted a process by which the validity of issued intellectual property could be challenged.22
`
`The new review process titled inter partes review (“IPR”) replaced the prior inter partes
`
`reexamination method.23 The new IPR process became available one year after the AIA was
`
`signed into law.24 It is my understanding that IPR is a proceeding conducted by the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) which
`
`has the mandate to review the patentability of patent claims.25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21 U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843.
`22 McKeown, Scott, “America Invents Act To Be Enacted September 16th,” Ropes & Gray, September 13, 2011
`(https://www.patentspostgrant.com/america-invents-act-to-be-enacted-september-16th/).
`“Inter Partes Review,” United States Patent and Trademark Office website (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review).
`“Inter Partes Review and Inter Partes Reexamination: More Than Just a Name Change,” McDonnell Boehnen
`Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Fall 2013 (https://www mbhb.com/intelligence/snippets/inter-partes-review-and-
`inter-partes-reexamination-more-than-just-a-name-change).
`“Inter Partes Review and Inter Partes Reexamination: More Than Just a Name Change,” McDonnell Boehnen
`Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, Fall 2013 (https://www mbhb.com/intelligence/snippets/inter-partes-review-and-
`inter-partes-reexamination-more-than-just-a-name-change).
`24 McKeown, Scott, “Inter Partes Patent Reexamination Standard to Tighten in 30 Days,” Ropes & Gray, August
`22, 2011 (https://www.patentspostgrant.com/important-patent-reexamination-standard-to-change-in-30-days/).
`“Inter Partes Review,” United States Patent and Trademark Office website (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review).
`“Please Login to PTAB,” USPTO website (https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login).
`
`23
`
`25
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 14 of 131 PageID #: 35482
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`23.
`
`The Patent-in-Suit has been subject to IPR proceedings.26 To date, the
`
`PTAB has denied an IPR petition brought by Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. (“Samsung”) in
`
`connection with the ’843 patent.27 However, the PTAB found certain claims unpatentable in
`
`connection with an IPR petition brought by Apple, Google and Motorola against the ’843 patent.28
`
`The decision was reversed by the Federal Circuit.29
`
`VI.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`24. Mobile devices, such as cellphones, smartphones, and the Google products
`
`accused in this matter are part of our daily lives. According to statistics provider Statista, around
`
`the date the ’843 patent issued in 2011, there were approximately 93 million smartphone users in
`
`the United States, representing almost 30 percent of the U.S. population.30 Statista further reported
`
`that by 2018 the total number of U.S. smartphone users had increased to 238 million and was
`
`forecast to reach 270 million by 2022.31
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`30
`
`31
`
`
`“Petition for Inter Partes Review Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et. seq. Patent No.
`7,917,843, Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC., Petitioners v. Arendi S.A.R.L. Patent
`Owner, December 2, 2013.
`“Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R.
`§42.100 et. seq., Samsung Electronics CO. LTD, Petitioner v. Arendi S.A.R.L. Patent Owner, July 11, 2014.
`“Decision, Denying Inter Partes and Joinder, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108 and 42.122(b),” Case No. IPR2014-01142,
`Patent 7,917,843, October 2, 2014.
`“Final Written Decision, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73,” Case No. IPR2014-00208, Patent
`7,917,843, June 9, 2015.
`Arendi successfully appealed portions of this decision. See: Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`“Research Peek of the Week: Smartphone Users in the US Expected to Reach Over 270 Million by 2022,” IIA,
`(https://internetinnovation.org/general/research-peek-of-the-week-smartphone-users-in-the-us-expected-to-
`reach-over-270-million-by-2020/).
`“Research Peek of the Week: Smartphone Users in the US Expected to Reach Over 270 Million by 2022,” IIA,
`(https://internetinnovation.org/general/research-peek-of-the-week-smartphone-users-in-the-us-expected-to-
`reach-over-270-million-by-2020/).
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 15 of 131 PageID #: 35483
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`25.
`
`This vast number of devices has produced an even greater number of
`
`communications events, both voice and text-based, with texting and text-based interactions
`
`outstripping voice as the method of choice on mobile devices. A 2015 study by Pew Research
`
`Center found that 97 percent of U.S. smartphone users had sent text messages.32 Another study
`
`from 2015 found that 68 percent of smartphone users use text to communicate more than voice.33
`
`26.
`
`It is my understanding that the ’843 patent provides readers and editors of
`
`documents containing textual information a feature that allows computer programs such as
`
`Chrome, Gmail, Messages, Docs, Hangouts and several others to identify and utilize textual
`
`content constituting certain types of information. These categories of information can include
`
`telephone numbers, email addresses, street addresses, or airline flight identifiers (i.e., flight
`
`numbers). It is my understanding that the ’843 patent teaches that an input device be set up to
`
`make these types of information actionable by the user. The input device may take the form, for
`
`example, of a menu item, link or tappable text. When a user taps or clicks on the input device
`
`associated with the identified entity, the Patent-in-Suit teaches that at least a part of the identified
`
`entity be sent to a second application such as Calendar, Google Maps, Gmail, Contacts, or the
`
`Phone Dialer.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that the ’843 patent provides for the “linked-to” second
`
`application to be used for searching an information source outside of the document such as a
`
`contact database, flight information database, or map database for additional information related
`
`to the highlighted information.
`
`32
`
`33
`
`
`Smith, Aaron, “U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015,” Pew Research Center, April 1, 2015
`(https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/).
`“Smartphone Users Spend as Much Time on Entertainment as Texting – GFK MRI Study,” GFK.com, March
`2, 2016 (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160203005952/en/Smartphone-Users-Spend-Time-
`Entertainment-Texting-%E2%80%93)
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 16 of 131 PageID #: 35484
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that this search can provide additional useful
`
`information, including:
`
`• an image associated with a phone number in a contact database
`
`the location of the address and information concerning contacts, businesses
`and landmarks associated with the address
`
`flight information in transportation database.
`
`Once identified, the Patent-in-Suit allows for performing an action, based
`
`•
`
`•
`
`29.
`
`in-part, on the type of information comprised in the identified text using the second information if
`
`the search returns a result. Examples of these action can include:
`
`• calling the contact from the contact database while displaying the image
`associated with the contact
`
`• displaying a map of the area near the first address including any venue name
`
`retrieving and displaying flight information.
`
`•
`
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`Accused Products
`
`
`
`VII.
`A.
`
`30.
`
`Arendi contends that certain Google products infringe the Patent-in-Suit.34
`
`The accused Google products include Nexus and Pixel smartphones, Nexus and Pixel tablets, and
`
`several Google apps created for the Android operating systems. See Exhibit 4 for a list of accused
`
`Google products.
`
`34
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Disclosure of Supplemental Accused Products and Asserted Patents, Arendi S.A.R.L. v.
`Google LLC, C.A. No. 13-919-LPS, February 6, 2019.
`
`Expert Report of Roy Weinstein
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 17 of 131 PageID #: 35485
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 335-1 Filed 03/15/21 Page 17 of 131 PageID #: 35485
`
`CONFIDENTIAL — OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`31.
`
`I understand that Arendi alleges that Google infringes the following
`
`claims.”
`
`Table l: Asserted Claims
`
`US.
`
`Patent No.
`
`Issue Date
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`l, 8, 23, and 30
`
`7,917,843
`
`March 29, 2011
`
`VIII. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DAMAGES

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket