Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 508 Filed 04/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 52265
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL
`FROM NEAL BELGAM REGARDING VERDICT FORM
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Daniel Taylor (No. 6934)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`dtaylor@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`Seth Ard (pro hac vice)
`Max Straus (pro hac vice)
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`
`John Lahad (pro hac vice)
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`jlahad@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan (pro hac vice)
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kemper Diehl (pro hac vice)
`401 Union Street, Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Dated: April 30, 2023
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 508 Filed 04/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 52266
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Arendi writes in response to Google’s letter of April 29, 2023. D.I. 507. Arendi agrees with
`Google there is no need to include a separate question on the verdict form regarding a royalty rate
`for the Accused Apps. Arendi further agrees with Google that the jury should be asked to give a
`single lump-sum damages number (see D.I. 505).
`
`The possibility of including a royalty rate question on the verdict form arose in the context
`of the Court’s inquiry regarding whether Mr. Weinstein had testified “that Arendi’s damages
`number with respect to the Chrome downloads is not correct.” Trial Tr. 1061:1-6. After further
`review of the transcript, Arendi understands the source of the Court’s question but believes Mr.
`Weinstein’s testimony referred to changes in his analysis arising from the exclusion of the earlier
`time periods no longer at issue as to Chrome, rather than uncertainty as to the unit base for the
`2017-2018 time frame for Chrome as to which he presented damages at trial.
`
`Because the scope of Arendi’s infringement claim against Chrome had changed before
`trial—such that Arendi now accuses only Chrome units downloaded from August 2017 to
`November 2018 (with Smart Text Selection) rather than units dating back to 2012 (with Content
`Detectors and Contextual Search Quick Actions)—Arendi understood Mr. Weinstein to be
`explaining that only Chrome units were affected by this change and not the units of the other
`Accused Apps.
`
`Specifically, Mr. Weinstein testified that “for all apps except Google Chrome, only Version
`8 or 9 were accused” when he wrote his expert report, and there was “nothing about the numbers
`I used for all of the apps, other than Google Chrome, that was impacted in any way by changes in
`the time period that – that’s now been used for purpose of calculating damages, that is moving
`from an earlier period to the period that we’re now using.” Tr. 609:2-11. Arendi did not understand
`Mr. Weinstein to indicate that his 2017 and 2018 unit numbers for Chrome (which correspond to
`Chrome with Smart Text Selection) potentially included non-infringing downloads.
`
`Mr. Weinstein testified instead that his updated analysis for Chrome was the same as his
`analysis for the other Accused Apps (which had previously been limited to Smart Text Selection),
`and that he stood by his unit number for Chrome: “For Google Chrome, I used the information that
`was provided on the documents you’ve been showing me to reflect the number of accused apps.
`And as I testified previously, that number agrees with the same numbers for accused apps that
`Google’s expert, Mr. Kidder, used, not only for all of the apps other than Google Chrome, but for
`Google Chrome as well.” Id. at 609:13-19.
`
`In subsequent questioning, Mr. Weinstein stated his numbers were not overinflated with
`the possible exception of Chrome. Id. at 611:20-22. Again here, however, in light of his prior
`testimony, Arendi understood Mr. Weinstein to be referring to the narrowing of the period for his
`Chrome damages rather than raising a question about it being over-inclusive as to the number of
`installed apps. On re-direct examination, Mr. Weinstein clarified that after narrowing his damages
`for Chrome, he believed his Chrome numbers were right because there was no difference “between
`how you determined the Chrome apps that are running on Android 8 versus non-Chrome apps that
`are running on Android 8” and that Chrome and non-Chrome units were produced in the same way
`by Google. Id. at 639:23-640:4.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 508 Filed 04/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 52267
`
`
`
`Nor has Google argued there is any issue with Mr. Weinstein’s analysis that is specific to
`Chrome. Even after the Court raised this issue on Friday, Google’s letter yesterday did not suggest
`otherwise. Google has instead argued only—and without any evidentiary support—that all of Mr.
`Weinstein’s damages numbers are incorrect. See D.I. 507; D.I. 496. Despite Google’s argument,
`there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Weinstein’s unit base for Chrome or any other Accused
`App overcounts the infringing units.
`
`Because the parties agree that there should be no separate jury question regarding a royalty
`rate and that a lump-sum damages request should be asked, the parties did not propose a line item
`to this effect on the verdict form.
`
`Finally, Google’s letter also raises a question regarding interpretation of the Samsung
`Agreement. This is unnecessary and improper. Arendi rests on what is in the joint jury instructions
`the parties submitted yesterday (D.I. 506).
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Neal C. Belgam
`
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`
`cc:
`
`
`Clerk of Court (via CM/ECF)
`All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)
`
`2
`
`