Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS
`
`LEAVE TO FILE GRANTED ON
`JANUARY 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY REGARDING FITBIT’S MOTION TO
`STRIKE, IN PART, THE INFRINGEMENT EXPERT REPORT AND
`OPINIONS OF DR. TOM MARTIN PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
`37(c)(1) AND LOCAL RULE 16.6(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` 
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 15
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Philips Adequately Alleged Infringement by Fitbit’s Cardio Fitness Score Feature, Which
`Includes Run Cardio Fitness Scores, in its Infringement Contentions ............................... 1 
`
`A. 
`
`Fitbit Admits That the Term “Cardio Fitness Score” Refers to Both “Run” and
`
`“Resting Heart Rate” Cardio Fitness Scores ........................................................... 1 
`
`B. 
`
`Fitbit’s New Arguments Not Raised in Its Opening Brief Also Fail. ..................... 2 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i. Medline is Inapposite ...................................................................................... 2 
`
`ii.      The Identification of “Heart Rate Zones” and “Resting Heart Rate” in
`
`Philips’s Contentions Did Not Transform the Meaning of “Cardio Fitness Score” 4 
`
`iii. There Are No Written Description or Enablement Issues .............................. 4 
`
` 
`
`Philips Adequately Disclosed Its Allegations of Joint Infringement .................................. 5 
`
`A. 
`
`Fitbit Conflates Philips’s Burden of Proof at Trial With the Disclosure
`
`Requirements of the Local Patent Rules ................................................................. 5 
`
`B. 
`
`Philips’s Infringement Contentions Disclosed that the User, Not Fitbit, Uses the
`
`Fitbit App ................................................................................................................ 7 
`
`C. 
`
`Philips Did Not “Supersede” the March 17, 2020 Supplement to Its Infringement
`
`Contentions ............................................................................................................. 7 
`
`Philips’s Infringement Contentions Adequately Disclosed Its Allegations Regarding Each
`of the Accused Products...................................................................................................... 9 
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 10 
`
`
`
`i
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
` Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................ 5
`
`DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C 11-03792, 2012 WL 1309161 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16,
`2012) ........................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Fenner Investments Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 6:08-cv-273, 2010 WL 786606 (E.D. Tex.
`Feb. 26, 2010) ............................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Johnson v. Indymac Mortg. Servicing, No. 12-cv-10808, 2014 WL 1652594 (D. Mass. Apr. 22,
`2014) ....................................................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Medline Indus., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 511 F.Supp.3d 883 (N.D. Ill. 2021) ................................. 3
`
`Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian Corp., 424 F.Supp.3d 214, 225 (D. Mass. 2019) .......................... 1, 2
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. NetApp, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-00961, 2017 WL 4844254 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26,
`2017) ........................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 13-cv-04134 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017) ........................... 2
`
`Wi-Lan Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 18-cv-01577, 2019 WL 5790999 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019) . 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`Defendant Fitbit LLC’s (“Fitbit”) Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Strike, in Part,
`
`the Infringement Expert Report and Opinions of Dr. Tom Martin Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`37(c)(1) and Local Rule 16.6(d) (Dkt. 295 (“Reply Brief”)) fails to meaningfully rebut the
`
`arguments made in Philips’s Opposition Brief (Dkt. 286, “Opposition Brief”). Fitbit also
`
`attempts to raise several new arguments for the first time in its Reply Brief that should be
`
`disregarded. See Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian Corp., 424 F.Supp.3d 214, 225 (D. Mass. 2019)
`
`(declining to consider new argument raised for first time in reply brief); Johnson v. Indymac
`
`Mortg. Servicing, No. 12-cv-10808, 2014 WL 1652594, at *5, n.14 (D. Mass. Apr. 22, 2014)
`
`(same).
`
`
`
`Philips Adequately Alleged Infringement by Fitbit’s Cardio Fitness Score Feature,
`Which Includes Run Cardio Fitness Scores, in its Infringement Contentions
`A.
`
`Fitbit Admits That the Term “Cardio Fitness Score” Refers to Both “Run”
`and “Resting Heart Rate” Cardio Fitness Scores
`
`In its Opposition Brief, Fitbit admits that Philips’s contentions use the phrase “Cardio
`
`Fitness Score,” which encompasses both types of Cardio Fitness Scores (Resting Heart Rate
`
`(“RHR”) and Run). Reply Brief at 6 (“Fitbit does not deny that the words “Cardio Fitness Score”
`
`appear in Philips’s contentions and that there are two types of Cardio Fitness Scores . . .”). This
`
`is not surprising since Fitbit’s own expert uses the phrase “Cardio Fitness Score” throughout his
`
`Rebuttal Report to refer to both RHR and Run Cardio Fitness Scores. See, e.g., Dkt. 302-05 at ¶¶
`
`138, 159, 160, 163, 181-183, 192-196, 257-259, 300-303, 329-334.
`
`Further, Fitbit’s Reply Brief fails to meaningfully distinguish any of the cases cited by
`
`Philips in its Opposition Brief where courts have held that referring generally to a broader
`
`category of functionality in infringement contentions provides disclosure of more specific
`
`functionality even when the contentions identify other examples. See Opposition Brief at 7
`
`(citing Realtime Data LLC v. NetApp, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-00961, 2017 WL 4844254, at *3 (E.D.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`Tex. Oct. 26, 2017); Fenner Investments Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 6:08-cv-273, 2010
`
`WL 786606, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2010); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 13-cv-
`
`04134 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017)). It is not credible that Fitbit was genuinely confused1 on this
`
`point, but even so, had Fitbit been “unclear as to the scope of the contentions, it was [Fitbit’s]
`
`responsibility to work with [Philips], informally or through motion practice, to clarify the issue.”
`
`Fenner Investments, 2010 WL 786606, at *3.
`
`B.
`
`Fitbit’s New Arguments Not Raised in Its Opening Brief Also Fail.
`
`Perhaps realizing the weakness of its motion, Fitbit raises for the first time in its Reply
`
`Brief three new arguments with regard to the Cardio Fitness Score feature. These arguments are
`
`untimely and thus should not even be considered by the Court. See Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian
`
`Corp., 424 F.Supp.3d 214, 225 (D. Mass. 2019) (declining to consider new argument raised for
`
`first time in reply brief); Johnson v. Indymac Mortg. Servicing, No. 12-cv-10808, 2014 WL
`
`1652594, at *5, n.14 (D. Mass. Apr. 22, 2014) (same). Even if the Court does consider these
`
`arguments, none of them warrant a different result.
`
`i.
`
`Medline is Inapposite
`
`Philips’s Opposition Brief pointed out (and Fitbit’s Reply brief did not dispute) that
`
`Fitbit’s Opening Brief did not cite any authority for the proposition that providing an example in
`
`claim charts limits infringement contentions to that specific example when the patent holder
`
`
`1 Fitbit also makes much of the assertion that “[e]very single image and citation in Philips’
`contentions referred to Resting Heart Rate Cardio Fitness Score.” Reply Br. at 4. Not only is this
`assertion false (as the citation to “Cardio Fitness Score” referred to both Run and Resting Heart
`Rate Cardio Fitness Scores), but it ignores the fact that there was only one image ever used. Each
`of the claim charts used the exact same image illustrating how Cardio Fitness Score is displayed.
`The fact that the image happened to display a Resting Heart Rate Cardio Fitness Score as
`opposed to a Run Cardio Fitness Score was mere happenstance. Limiting Philips’s contentions to
`only the Resting Heart Rate Cardio Fitness Scores would be as nonsensical as limiting Philips’s
`contentions to only Cardio Fitness Scores that are exactly 41-45 (the score that appeared in the
`single screenshot used).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`explicitly discloses a broader category. Opposition Brief at 7. Seemingly in response, Fitbit’s
`
`Reply Brief relies almost exclusively on a single previously undisclosed case, Medline, citing to
`
`it nine times. Reply Brief at 4-6, 8 (citing Medline Indus., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 511 F.Supp.3d
`
`883 (N.D. Ill. 2021)). However, this case is distinguishable from the present case.
`
`Specifically, in Medline, the patent holder itself attempted to define a phrase “SureStep
`
`System” to identify various accused products including “all variants of the SureStep kit,
`
`including catheterization systems with ‘urine meters.’” Medline, 511 F.Supp.3d at 899 (emphasis
`
`added). The Court found this to be an “expansive and non-limiting definition” of accused
`
`products that “did not identify the Meter tray or kit with the specificity required” by the local
`
`rules. Id. This is in sharp contrast to the phrase “Cardio Fitness Score” that is Fitbit’s own term
`
`for the accused features–independent from Philips’s infringement contentions. See Opposition
`
`Br. at 6-7 (citing examples of Fitbit referring to both calculations as “cardio fitness score”). Nor
`
`is the definition of “Cardio Fitness Score” “expansive and non-limiting.” Medline, 511
`
`F.Supp.3d at 899. Quite the opposite; there are only two types of Cardio Fitness Scores, scores
`
`calculated via the Run model and scores calculated via the Resting Heart Rate model. Philips’s
`
`infringement contentions captured both by using the term “Cardio Fitness Score.”
`
`What is more, Medline held that the claim charts at issue did not provide adequate
`
`disclosure that the patent holder was accusing different commercial products. In particular, the
`
`Bag kits and the Meter kits in the Medline decision were separate commercial products. Medline,
`
`511 F.Supp.3d at 901 (noting that “there are just two products at issue: the Bag kit and the Meter
`
`kit”). As opposed to other claims in the patent that were asserted to cover both products, the
`
`patent claim at issue was only asserted to cover the Bag kit product to the exclusion of the Meter
`
`kit product. In contrast, Philips is not trying to insert a new uncharted product into the case, but
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`is merely relying on the explicitly disclosed feature of Cardio Fitness Score (including both
`
`forms of Cardio Fitness Score) to demonstrate how the charted products meet certain limitations.
`
`
`
`Thus, Medline, if it is even considered, is inapposite and does not stand for the principle
`
`that providing an example in claim charts limits infringement contentions to that specific
`
`example when the patent holder explicitly discloses a broader category.
`
`ii.
`
`The Identification of “Heart Rate Zones” and “Resting Heart
`Rate” in Philips’s Contentions Did Not Transform the
`Meaning of “Cardio Fitness Score”
`
`Fitbit’s Reply Brief raises another argument for the first time, specifically that by
`
`independently accusing the “Heart Rate Zones” and “Resting Heart Rate” features in addition to
`
`the “Cardio Fitness Score” feature, Philips’s contentions were somehow “focus[ed] on heart
`
`rate” and thus “Cardio Fitness Score” could only mean RHR Cardio Fitness Score. Reply Brief at
`
`6. This line of reasoning borders on nonsense. First, these were infringement contentions, not
`
`statutes, so the doctrine of noscitur a sociis does not apply despite Fitbit’s assertion to the
`
`contrary. Reply Brief at 6. Second, and more importantly, both forms of Cardio Fitness Score
`
`deal with heart rate (not surprisingly given the name Cardio Fitness Score), and heart rate values
`
`are used into the calculation of both Run and Resting Heart Rate Cardio Fitness Scores. See 270-
`
`02 at ¶¶ 141, 153-154. Thus, even if Philips’s contentions were somehow “focus[ed] on heart
`
`rate” there would be no reason to assume that “Cardio Fitness Score” would not be referring to
`
`both the Run and RHR models.
`
`iii.
`
`There Are No Written Description or Enablement Issues
`
`Fitbit’s assertion (raised for the first time in its Reply Brief) that Philips’s accusation of
`
`the Run Cardio Fitness Score “raises potential written description and enablement issues under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112” is nothing more than—yet another—attempt at justifying belated (and waived)
`
`invalidity contentions in this case. Reply Brief at 7. This argument does not have anything to do
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`with whether Philips adequately disclosed the Run Cardio Fitness Score in its infringement
`
`contentions. Further, Fitbit does not dispute that Philips’s contentions identified GPS calculated
`
`distance as one type of “data indicating an amount of exercise performed by the subject” that is
`
`received by the Fitbit App. See Opposition Brier at 9. Thus, if there were any real issues
`
`regarding written description or enablement related to GPS, then Fitbit could have and should
`
`have raised those in its invalidity contentions. It chose not to.
`
`
`
`Philips Adequately Disclosed Its Allegations of Joint Infringement
`A.
`
`Fitbit Conflates Philips’s Burden of Proof at Trial With the Disclosure
`Requirements of the Local Patent Rules
`
`Fitbit’s reply brief conflates what Philips must prove at trial with what the Local Patent
`
`Rules required Philips to disclose in its infringement contentions. Specifically, Fitbit cites to
`
`Akamai for the proposition that “[b]eyond performance of the claimed method, there are two
`
`essential elements that Philips must prove in order to show that Fitbit is liable for joint
`
`infringement,” namely that Fitbit conditions the receipt of a benefit on its users’ performance of
`
`a step or steps of the patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.
`
`Reply Br. at 1 (emphasis added) (citing Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797
`
`F.3d 1020, 1022-23 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). However, Fitbit does not explain how what Philips must
`
`prove at trial is relevant to what Philips was required to disclose under the Local Patent Rules.
`
`Local Rule 16.6(d)(vii) simply requires that “if any alleged infringement is based on the
`
`acts of multiple parties” that the patent holder disclose “the role of each such party in the
`
`infringement.” And Fitbit still has failed to cite to any case law that suggests that the Local Rules
`
`require any more disclosure with regard to joint infringement than disclosing the role2 of each
`
`
`2 Nor does Fitbit provide any support for its position that disclosing the “role of each party in the
`infringement” requires a limitation by limitation analysis of “which party performs which claim
`steps”. Reply Br. at 1. Of course, as discussed in Philips’s Opposition Brief, Philips’s
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`party. Further, Fitbit’s reply fails to address the case law cited by Philips, which teaches that
`
`“infringement contentions need not disclose specific evidence.” Wi-Lan Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`
`No. 18-cv-01577, 2019 WL 5790999, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2019); see also DCG Sys. v.
`
`Checkpoint Techs., LLC, No. C 11-03792, 2012 WL 1309161, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012)
`
`(noting that patent local rules do not “require the disclosure of specific evidence nor do they
`
`require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case”); Opposition Brief at 13. And of course, as
`
`explained in Philips’s Opposition Brief, Philips’s infringement contentions not only disclosed the
`
`role of each party in infringing the ’377 Patent, but they also identified the benefits upon which
`
`performance of the claimed steps is conditioned as well as disclosed how Fitbit determines the
`
`manner of the user’s performance. Opposition Brief at 10-14.
`
`Additionally, Rule 37(c)(1) only provides for exclusion of information that was not
`
`provided under Rule 26(a), but Fitbit only identifies two specific theories in Dr. Martin’s report
`
`regarding joint infringement that allegedly were not disclosed in Philips’s infringement
`
`contentions. Namely, Fitbit asserts that Dr. Martin’s Report disclosed for the first time that
`
`Cardio Fitness Score is a benefit that Fitbit conditions receipt of on the performance of the
`
`asserted method (see Opening Brief at 6) and that the user performs limitation 1(c) (see Opening
`
`Brief at 7-8). As explained in Philips’s Opposition Brief Philips’s infringement contentions
`
`plainly disclosed both of these theories. See Opposition Brief at 12-14; see also Section II.B.
`
`infra. Thus, even if the Court were to determine that Philips’s response to Interrogatory No. 9
`
`(including Philips’s infringement contentions incorporated by reference)3 did not fully answer
`
`
`infringement contentions did provide that level of disclosure via its infringement charts and the
`March 17, 2020 supplement even though it was not required. See Opposition Brief at 12-13.
`3 Fitbit has also failed to provide any case law suggesting that Philips’s supplementation of its
`response to Interrogatory No. 9 “via the disclosure of expert testimony” was improper or that
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 9, Fitbit has not demonstrated what information in Dr. Martin’s expert report
`
`Philips’s response did not provide. Thus, there is no basis to preclude Dr. Martin’s opinion
`
`regarding joint infringement under Rule 37(c)(1).
`
`B.
`
`Philips’s Infringement Contentions Disclosed that the User, Not Fitbit, Uses
`the Fitbit App
`
`Philips’s infringement contentions were clear that the “render a user interface” limitation
`
`1(c) of the ’377 Patent is performed when a Fitbit customer uses the Fitbit App, which does the
`
`actual rendering of the user interface. See Opposition Brief at 12-13. Fitbit tries to argue that
`
`because Philips’s claim charts disclosed that the user interface is rendered “via the Fitbit App,”
`
`this somehow suggests that Fitbit is using the Fitbit App to perform this step. Reply Br. at 2.
`
`This ignores Philips’s clear disclosure in the March 17, 2020 supplement, which stated that “the
`
`customers directly infringe by using the Fitbit system, App and services through their account.”
`
`Dkt. 270-10 at 8. There can be no dispute that Philips’s contentions plainly disclosed that Fitbit’s
`
`users perform limitation 1(c) by using the Fitbit App which renders a user interface on the web-
`
`enabled wireless phone.
`
`C.
`
`Philips Did Not “Supersede” the March 17, 2020 Supplement to Its
`Infringement Contentions
`
`In an attempt to perhaps distract from the fact that the March 17, 2020 supplement to
`
`Philips’s infringement contentions provided the very information Fitbit complained was never
`
`disclosed (see Opposition Brief at 10-12), Fitbit suggests for the first time in its Reply Brief that
`
`“Philips’s March 17, 2020 infringement contentions” were somehow “superseded” by Philips’s
`
`“subsequent May 15, 2020 infringement contentions”. Reply Br. at 1, n.1. Not only does Fitbit
`
`not provide any support for this position, but it mischaracterizes both the March 17, 2020 and
`
`
`Philips should be barred from supplementing its response to Interrogatory No. 9 during expert
`discovery. See Opposition Br. at 14-15.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`May 15, 2020 documents, which were supplements to Philips’s original infringement
`
`contentions and not intended to supersede anything. See Dkt. 270-10 (entitled: “Plaintiff Philips
`
`North American LLC’s Supplemental L.R. 16.6(d)(1) Disclosures”) (emphasis added); Dkt. 270-
`
`11 (entitled “Plaintiff Philips North America LLC’s First Supplemental L.R. 16.6(d)(1)
`
`Disclosures”) (emphasis added). What is more, Fitbit’s position is inconsistent with its own
`
`Opening Brief that cited to both supplements, referring to them as “Philips’s contentions,”
`
`without any suggestion that the March 17, 2020 supplement was somehow “superseded.” See
`
`Dkt. 269 (“Opening Brief”) at 6 (citing to “Exs. 9-11”).
`
`Further, the March 17, 2020 supplement was specifically made in response to Fitbit’s
`
`request for more disclosure regarding identification of means-plus-function terms and to provide
`
`further details regarding joint, contributory, and induced infringement. See Dkt. 270-10 at 1
`
`(“having met and conferred with counsel for Fitbit, Philips . . . provides the following
`
`supplemental disclosures”); Dkt. 270-5 at 3-4 (describing Philips’s agreement to supplement no
`
`later than March 17th regarding “means-plus-function disclosures” and to provide “further
`
`details in contentions regarding joint, contributory and induced infringement”). As such, the
`
`March 17, 2020 supplement does not update the claim charts, but merely provides discussion
`
`about these topics. See Dkt. 270-10. In contrast, the May 15, 2020 supplement only provided an
`
`update to the claim charts and thus recycled the cover sheet from the original infringement
`
`contentions. Compare Dkt. 270-9 with Dkt. 270-11. Thus, it is clear that both the March 17,
`
`2020 supplement and the May 15, 2020 supplement were meant to supplement different parts of
`
`Philips’s infringement contentions and did not “supersede” each other, nor did Philips ever
`
`somehow disavow its prior contentions with regard to Joint Infringement.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips’s Infringement Contentions Adequately Disclosed Its Allegations Regarding
`Each of the Accused Products
`
`Fitbit again conflates what must be proved at trial with what must be disclosed under the
`
`local rules. According to Fitbit, because a patentee must prove that an allegedly representative
`
`product is indeed representative, the patentee must also disclose any representativeness theories
`
`in its infringement contentions. But Fitbit still fails to provide any authority for this position.
`
`Again, there was no need to identify “representative products” in Philips’s contentions because
`
`Philips separately charted every product. How Philips chooses to present those individually
`
`mapped infringement positions at trial is a matter to be balanced against trial efficiency and
`
`clarity for the jury, which stands apart from whether the infringement contentions were
`
`individually charted, which they unquestionably were, as part of the infringement contentions.
`
`Further, Fitbit’s allegation that “neither Philips nor the Martin Report identify that
`
`‘technical documentation’ or how the Fitbit products infringe in ‘substantially the same manner’”
`
`is incorrect. Reply Brief at 9. For every single functionality of the accused products that Dr.
`
`Martin’s Report describes, Dr. Martin provided a citation to technical documentation (including
`
`to the specific page in each products’ respective user manuals that was cited in each products’
`
`respective claim chart) that demonstrated how the accused products infringed shared that
`
`functionality and thus infringed in substantially the same manner. See, e.g., Dkt. 270-02 at ¶¶
`
`674, 795. Any complaint of Fitbit to Dr. Martin’s citations could have been clarified at his
`
`deposition and only goes to weight of the expert’s testimony.
`
`
`4 “The user manual for each of the other ’377 Devices similarly demonstrates that each of the
`’377 Device provide number of steps, active minutes, heart rate, and distance.” (citing to specific
`pages in respective user manuals).
`5 “The user manual for each of the other ’377 Devices similarly demonstrates that during syncs
`heart rate information (along with the rest of the exercise-related information) is transferred to
`the Fitbit Dashboard/Fitbit App.” (citing to specific pages in respective user manuals).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`Finally, Fitbit’s attempt to prevent Dr. Martin from relying on his testing of four of the
`
`accused products to demonstrate how the accused products operate rings hollow when Fitbit’s
`
`own expert tested just two of the accused products to demonstrate that all of the accused products
`
`operated in similar fashion with regard to certain functionality. See Dkt. 302-05 at ¶ 115. At his
`
`deposition, Dr. Paradiso admitted that testing some of the accused products to demonstrate how
`
`all of them worked is reasonable and “makes sense.” Ex. 1 (Portions of the Transcript of the
`
`February 2, 2022 Deposition of Dr. Joseph A. Paradiso) at 291:19-294:12. Of course, that all the
`
`products operate in a similar fashion is not a controversial realization—they all use the same
`
`Fitbit App.
`
` Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in Philips’s Opposition Brief, Philips
`
`respectfully requests that the Court deny Fitbit’s Motion.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`Dated: February 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /s/ John W. Custer
`
`Lucas I. Silva (BBO 673,935)
`Ruben J. Rodrigues (BBO 676,573)
`John Custer (BBO 705,258)
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`111 Huntington Avenue
`Suite 2500
`Boston, MA 02199-7610
`Phone: (617) 342-4000
`Fax: (617) 342-4001
`lsilva@foley.com
`rrodrigues@foley.com
`jcuster@foley.com
`
`
`
`Eley O. Thompson (pro hac vice)
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 N. Clark Street
`Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60654-5313
`Phone: (312) 832-4359
`Fax: (312) 832-4700
`ethompson@foley.com
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Philips North America LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 315 Filed 02/22/22 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was filed with
`
`the Court through the ECF system and that a copy will be electronically served on registered
`
`participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ John W. Custer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`