Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
`charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
`David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)
`davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`17
`
`
`
`v.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. &
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`23
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., & HISILICON
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendants.
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
` CASE NO. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO
`PARTIALLY EXCLUDE THE
`REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF
`JORGE PADILLA, MICHAEL J.
`LASINSKI, AND CHARLES L.
`JACKSON AND STRIKE THE
`REBUTTAL OPINIONS OF
`JACQUES DELISLE AND ZHI DING
`
`
`Hearing Date: August 8, 2018
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANTS HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,
`
`2
`
`LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., AND
`
`3
`
`HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`4
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 8, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`
`5
`
`matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable William H. Orrick, located at 450 Golden
`
`6
`
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Samsung
`
`7
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`8
`
`(collectively “Samsung”) respectfully request under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that
`
`9
`
`this Court partially exclude the reports and testimony of Jorge Padilla, Michael J. Lasinski, and
`
`10
`
`Charles L. Jackson proffered by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei
`
`11
`
`Technologies USA, Inc., and HiSilicon Technologies Co., Ltd. (collectively “Huawei”). Samsung
`
`12
`
`also respectfully requests under Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that
`
`13
`
`this Court strike certain rebuttal opinions offered by Jacques deLisle and Zhi Ding.
`
`14
`
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and
`
`15
`
`authorities, the supporting declaration of Sam Stake, the accompanying exhibits, reply briefing in
`
`16
`
`further support of this motion and supporting declarations and accompanying exhibits, as well as
`
`17
`
`other written or oral argument that Samsung may present to the Court.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: July 3, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
`By
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Victoria F. Maroulis
`Thomas D. Pease
`David A. Perlson
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`3
`
`INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
`
`4
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ..........................................................................................................................4
`
`5
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................5
`
`6
`
`I.
`
`HUAWEI’S EXPERTS USE UNRELIABLE METHODOLOGIES AND OFFER
`OPINIONS BEYOND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`
` ..................................................................5
`
`Mr. Lasinski and Dr. Padilla Provide Improper Opinions and Analyses
`Outside of Their Areas of Purported Expertise ..........................................................8
`
`Dr. Padilla’s Attempt To Improperly Bolster Mr. Lasinski’s Reports Should
`Be Excluded .............................................................................................................10
`
`Dr. Jackson’s Essentiality Database is Unreliable ...................................................11
`
`Mr. Lasinski’s “Indicators of Portfolio Strength” Are Unreliable ...........................14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Lasinski’s Reliance on “Global Deemed SEPs” Is Unreliable ..............19
`
` ..................15
`
`16
`
`II.
`
`HUAWEI’S EXPERTS OFFER IMPROPER EXPERT REBUTTAL
`TESTIMONY .......................................................................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`Dr. deLisle’s Opinions Do Not Contradict or Rebut Any of Samsung’s
`Experts’ Opinions .....................................................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Ding’s Improper “Rebuttal” Opinions Should Be Stricken ...............................21
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................22
`
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2012 WL 1672493 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2012) ...................................................................... 8
`
`Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. v. Celera Corp.,
`2015 WL 138168 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................... 6, 9
`
`BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2018 WL 1611835 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018) .................................................................. 4, 19
`
`Clear-View Techs, Inc. v. Rasnick,
`2015 WL 3509384 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2015) ...................................................................... 10
`
`Creach v. Spokane Cnty.,
`2013 WL 12177099 (E.D. Wa. May 2, 2013) ..................................................................... 11
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ........................................................................................................ 4, 14
`
`Eveler v. Ford Motor Co.,
`2017 WL 3382460 (E.D. La. Aug. 7, 2017) .................................................................. 13, 14
`
`Feduniak v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Co.,
`No. 13-CV-02060-BLF, 2015 WL 1969369 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015) ............................... 19
`
`Gonzalez v. Valenzuela,
`2001 WL 36387147 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2001) .................................................................. 10
`
`Henricksen v. ConocoPhillips Co.,
`605 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (E.D. Wash. 2009) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3954108 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2017) ...................................................................... 8
`
`Humphreys v. Regents of Univ. of California,
`2006 WL 1867713 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2006) ......................................................................... 3
`
`In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`302 F.R.D. 537 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Imperial Credit Indus., Inc. Sec. Litig,
`252 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ................................................................................. 8
`
`Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Sys.,
`2013 WL 3786633 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013) ....................................................................... 7
`
`Johns Bayer Corp.,
`2013 WL 1498965 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) ..................................................................... 10
`
`K&N Engineering, Inc. v. Spectre Performance,
`2011 WL 13131157 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2011) ............................................................. 10, 13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`Kass v. Kass,
`91 N.Y.2d 554 (1998) ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Krueger v. Wyeth, Inc.,
`No. 03CV2496-JAH MDD, 2012 WL 3637276 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012) ....................... 21
`
`Matthew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
`2016 WL 4272430 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016) ................................................................ 5, 20
`
`Media Sport & Arts s.r.l. v. Kinney Shoe Corp.,
`1999 WL 946354 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1999) ....................................................................... 10
`
`Mesfun v. Hagos,
`2005 WL 5956612 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2005) ....................................................................... 7
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`2013 WL 4008822 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2013) ............................................................. 8, 10
`
`Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2018 WL 2124019 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2018) ................................................................ 15
`
`Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`178 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`Nelson v. Matrix Initiatives,
`2012 WL 3627399 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012) ................................................................ 7, 20
`
`Novadaq Techs., Inc. v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G.,
`2015 WL 9266497 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015) ...................................................................... 5
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Zuckerman,
`189 Cal.App.3d 1113 (1987) ........................................................................................... 7, 20
`
`Pooshs v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.,
`287 F.R.D. 543 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP,
`20 N.Y.3d 430 (2013) ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`TCL Commc’ns Tech. Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktenbologet LM Ericsson,
`2016 WL 6662727 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) ................................................................. 13, 16
`
`United States v. Mejia,
`545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`United States v. Tran Trong Cuong,
`18 F.3d 1132 (4th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Van Der Valk v. Shell Oil Co.,
`2004 WL 5486643 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2004) .................................................................... 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-iii-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Giancontieri,
`77 N.Y.2d 157 (1990) ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Wadler v. Bio-rad Laboratories,
`2016 WL 6070530 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) ................................................................. 5, 22
`
`Wettlaufer v. Mt. Hood R. Co.,
`2013 WL 4008822 (9th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Statutes
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 702(a) ................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) ............................................................................................. 4, 5, 20, 21
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ........................................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-iv-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 requires the Court to serve as a gatekeeper to ensure that the jury hears
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3
`
`only expert testimony with a reliable foundation that falls within the expert’s qualifications. Several
`
`4
`
`opinions offered by Huawei’s experts fail these basic tests and will mislead and inflame the jury,
`
`5
`
`ultimately tainting the fair presentation of the parties’ claims and defenses at trial.
`
`6
`
`This action involves competing assertions of declared essential standards patents (“SEPs”)
`
`7
`
`and breach of FRAND contract claims. Owners of SEPs must license their patents on fair,
`
`8
`
`reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 1, ft. 342.
`
`
`
`
`
` Id., fig. 63.
`
`15
`
`Huawei’s attempt to justify its failure to offer Samsung these terms feature prominently in this
`
`16
`
`motion, as do several other Huawei expert testimony issues.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
` This governing New York
`
`3
`
`law imposes a strict “parol evidence” rule that limits the Court to the four corners of the document
`
`4
`
`itself and only permits extrinsic evidence to be considered if the Court first determines as a matter
`
`5
`
`of law that a contract term is ambiguous.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`Second, Mr. Lasinski and Huawei’s “Breach of FRAND” expert, economist Dr. Jorge
`
`10
`
`Padilla, venture outside their expertise, analyzing issues of French law. Recognizing that French
`
`11
`
`law governs FRAND issues and requires special expertise, both parties submitted reports from
`
`12
`
`French law experts. Although neither expert has French law expertise, both opine on the nature of
`
`13
`
`the FRAND commitment and whether each party complied with their commitment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Huawei’s experts’ improper French law analysis extends to their attempts to summarize the
`
`19
`
`negotiation history of the parties.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`Allowing experts to summarize the facts or opine on ultimate legal issues usurps the role of the jury
`
`25
`
`as the ultimate arbiter of fact and should not be permitted. Indeed, as courts have recognized, expert
`
`26
`
`testimony is not admissible when it opines on or draws inferences from lay matters which a jury is
`
`27
`
`capable of understanding, especially since it “runs the risk that the jury will pay unwarranted
`
`28
`
`deference” to his or her expertise. Humphreys v. Regents of Univ. of California, 2006 WL 1867713,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2006). The narrative summaries of Mr. Lasinski and Dr. Padilla and their
`
`2
`
`opinions on ultimate legal issues should be excluded.
`
`3
`
`Third, Dr. Padilla’s report includes sections that merely bolster Mr. Lasinski’s analysis. Ex.
`
`4
`
`3, ¶ 2.4
`
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Fourth, Huawei’s expert Dr. Charles Jackson should be precluded from serving as a conduit
`
` Such opinions should be precluded.
`
`7
`
`for the hearsay opinions of others on key issues such as the alleged essentiality of industry patents.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`.
`
`Finally,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Huawei also offers improper rebuttal opinions from Dr. Jacques deLisle and Dr. Zhi Ding
`
`
`
`10
`
`that violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) by failing to “contradict or rebut
`
`11
`
`evidence on the same subject matter identified by” Samsung. Dr. deLisle admits he has not actually
`
`12
`
`“seen any Samsung expert reports” whereas Dr. Ding opines on a “technical comparison” of patents
`
`13
`
`that Samsung’s experts did not address. These opinions should be stricken.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows expert testimony only if (1) the expert’s scientific,
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`16
`
`technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
`
`17
`
`determine a fact in issue; (2) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (3) the testimony is
`
`18
`
`the product of reliable principles and methods; and (4) the expert has reliably applied the principles
`
`19
`
`and methods to the facts of the case. Courts applying this rule must ensure “that an expert’s
`
`20
`
`testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” Daubert v. Merrell
`
`21
`
`Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). The Court should act “as a gatekeeper by examining
`
`22
`
`the full picture of the experts’ methodology and preventing shoddy expert testimony and junk
`
`23
`
`science from reaching the jury.” BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., 2018 WL 1611835, at *1
`
`24
`
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018) (internal citations removed).
`
`25
`
`The Court should ensure that the methodology proffered reliably reaches its conclusions
`
`26
`
`based on the facts of the case. The Court must ensure there is not “too great an analytical gap”
`
`27
`
`between the data and the opinion proffered. Pooshs v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 287 F.R.D. 543,
`
`28
`
`547 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The opinion should not be based on the “ipse dixit” of the expert. Id. If “any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`step” of an expert’s methodology is unreliable, the expert’s testimony is inadmissible. Henricksen
`
`2
`
`v. ConocoPhillips Co., 605 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1154 (E.D. Wash. 2009). An expert should not opine
`
`3
`
`on topics that are within the “ordinary competence or experience” of the finder of fact. In re
`
`4
`
`ConAgra Foods, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 537, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2014). Moreover, experts should not “usurp”
`
`5
`
`the role of the court by utilizing “judicially defined terms” that offer “improper legal opinion.” Id.
`
`6
`
`at 558.
`
`7
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for rebuttal expert testimony only in instances
`
`8
`
`where the “evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter
`
`9
`
`identified by another party[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii) (emphasis added); Wadler v. Bio-rad
`
`10
`
`Laboratories, 2016 WL 6070530, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) (rebuttal testimony “cannot be
`
`11
`
`used to advance new arguments or new evidence”). Consequently, such testimony is “proper as
`
`12
`
`long as it addresses the same subject matter that the initial experts address.” Novadaq Techs., Inc.
`
`13
`
`v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G., 2015 WL 9266497, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015). Where rebuttal
`
`14
`
`expert testimony fails to satisfy these requirements, courts will only allow such evidence to be used
`
`15
`
`at trial if the proffering party can show that its failure was either substantially justified or harmless.
`
`16
`
`Matthew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 2016 WL 4272430, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`HUAWEI’S EXPERTS USE UNRELIABLE METHODOLOGIES AND OFFER
`OPINIONS BEYOND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`I.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 The New York law governing this agreement mandates a strict “parol evidence” rule,
`
`19
`
`by which a court must decide whether the terms of the contract are ambiguous as a matter of law
`
`20
`
`based on the four corners of the document itself before considering extrinsic evidence. See Kass v.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1
`
`2 See Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. v. Celera Corp., 2015 WL 138168, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`2015) (even deposition testimony of a party, or anyone aligned with the party, is considered “self-
`serving and inadmissible hearsay when offered by the party himself,” thus a party may not “send up
`a friendly forensic advocate to summarize [a fact witness’] deposition testimony for the jury.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 566–67 (1998).4 Where, as here, the agreement includes a merger clause,
`
`2
`
`extrinsic evidence is barred. Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 N.Y.3d 430, 436 (2013).5
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Although experts may base opinions on inadmissible evidence under Rule 703 when it is
`
`
`
`.
`
`6
`
`information “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field” in forming opinions
`
`7
`
`or inferences upon the subject, experts are permitted to rely on hearsay statements only “if proper
`
`8
`
`foundation is laid that others in the field would likewise rely on them.” Mesfun v. Hagos, 2005 WL
`
`9
`
`5956612, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2005) (finding that an expert’s testimony was not on a “reliable
`
`10
`
`foundation” because it relied on inadmissible hearsay).6 Huawei cannot in good faith argue that
`
`11
`
`economists ordinarily rely on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`When an expert bases his conclusions on selective use of the facts or matters not reasonably
`
`
`
`18
`
`relied upon by other experts, the conclusion has no evidentiary value. See Nelson v. Matrix
`
`19
`
`Initiatives, 2012 WL 3627399, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012) (citing Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v.
`
`20
`
`Zuckerman, 189 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1128 (1987)). As the gatekeeper of expert testimony under
`
`21
`
`Daubert, this Court should exclude Mr. Lasinski’s economic analysis of “Comparable Agreements”
`
`22
`
`because it is not based on facts or data of a type that experts in the field use to form inferences or
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`4 W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162-63 (1990); see also Schron v.
`Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 N.Y.3d 430, 436 (2013) (“Parol evidence—evidence outside the four
`corners of the document—is admissible only if a court finds an ambiguity in the contract.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 See also Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Sys., 2013 WL 3786633, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July
`18, 2013) (noting that expert’s testimony “fail[ed] to meet the standards required for admissible
`evidence” because it lacked “foundation” and was “conclusory” and “unreliable”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`opinions. See In re Imperial Credit Indus., Inc. Sec. Litig, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1013 (C.D. Cal.
`
`2
`
`2003) (excluding expert report from evidence insofar as it does not use “facts or data of a
`
`3
`
`type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field”).
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`B. Mr. Lasinski and Dr. Padilla Provide Improper Opinions and Analyses
`Outside of Their Areas of Purported Expertise
`
`Courts, and Huawei itself, have recognized that French law governs the ETSI IPR Policy.
`
`7
`
`See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 1672493, at *10 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2012); see also
`
`8
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 2017 WL 3954108, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2017) (noting
`
`9
`
`that both parties, including Huawei, agreed that “French law governs the ETSI IPR Policy, and that
`
`10
`
`contract interpretation under French law must be decided by the Court.”). Indeed, both parties have
`
`11
`
`submitted reports from French law experts regarding interpretation of ETSI principles, and have
`
`12
`
`taken the deposition of each respective witness. See, e.g., Exs. 21, 22.
`
`13
`
`Although Mr. Lasinski and Dr. Padilla are not French law experts, they have submitted
`
`14
`
`reports in which they provide their own subjective analysis and interpretation of “FRAND,”
`
`15
`
`including
`
`16
`
`. Exs. 1 ¶¶ 68-76; 2 ¶¶ 1.13, 3.20-3.38, 6.8; Microsoft
`
`
`
`17
`
`Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 WL 4008822, at *14 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2013) (“there is little
`
`18
`
`question that statements by an expert witness as to the circumstances under which a patent holder
`
`19
`
`fulfills its [F]RAND obligation is beyond the scope of permissible expert testimony.”).
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 15 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
` At the very least, such opinions must
`
`2
`
`be excluded because Mr. Lasinski and Dr. Padilla are not qualified to opine on issues of French law.
`
`3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 702(a); Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 178 F. Supp. 3d 867, 900–01 (N.D.
`
`4
`
`Cal. 2016) (excluding expert’s opinions regarding subjects that were not “grounded in his [] personal
`
`5
`
`knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”) (quotations and citation omitted); see also
`
`6
`
`Exs. 1 ¶¶ 1-6, Appendix A; 2 ¶¶ 1.1, 1.3, Annex A.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Such testimony is neither reliable nor within his
`
`23
`
`expertise, and if admitted will unfairly confuse the jury. It should be excluded.
`
`24
`
`The Court should require Huawei to present this testimony, if at all, through fact witnesses,
`
`25
`
`not experts.7 Allowing experts to summarize the facts would usurp the role of the jury as the
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`7 See Johns v. Bayer Corp., 2013 WL 1498965 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (citing Media Sport
`& Arts s.r.l. v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 1999 WL 946354, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1999) (where an
`expert’s testimony “is not based on personal knowledge, but instead on his review of documents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 16 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`ultimate arbiter of fact issues. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Valenzuela, 2001 WL 36387147, at *4 (C.D.
`
`2
`
`Cal. Nov. 26, 2001) (excluding expert witnesses’ testimony regarding factual issues of what the
`
`3
`
`parties did and said in part because the “jury must determine whether Defendant acted reasonably
`
`4
`
`based on the testimony of the [actual] parties involved”). The same problems arise where experts
`
`5
`
`to opine on ultimate legal issues. See Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc., 523
`
`6
`
`F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (“an expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal
`
`7
`
`conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law.”) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted);
`
`8
`
`Microsoft, 2013 WL 4008822, at *20 (“the legal conclusion as to the parties’ RAND obligations
`
`9
`
`and duties is solely within the province of the court.”). Mr. Lasinski’s and Dr. Padilla’s
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`.8
`
`C.
`
`Dr. Padilla’s Attempt To Improperly Bolster Mr. Lasinski’s Reports Should
`Be Excluded
`
`Dr. Padilla’s rebuttal report also contains improper statements simply commenting Mr.
`
`Lasinski’s analysis that should be excluded. An expert, “however well credentialed, is not permitted
`
`to be the mouthpiece of a scientist of a different specialty.” See Clear-View Techs, Inc. v. Rasnick,
`
`2015 WL 3509384, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Experts are not permitted to “vouch for the truth” of another expert’s conclusion. K&N Engineering,
`
`Inc. v. Spectre Performance, 2011 WL 13131157, at *10 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2011). Portions of Dr.
`
`Padilla’s rebuttal report are plainly intended to bolster Mr. Lasinski’s report, and must be excluded.9
`
`t
`
`
`and depositions produced by the parties,” the expert’s testimony “may not take the place of that of
`the individuals who actually negotiated the deal”)).
`8 Mr. Lasinski and Dr. Padilla both have submitted rebuttal reports and supplemental reports
`
`
` To the extent the Court grants Samsung’s Motion, Samsung requests that the
`Court also exclude the corresponding opinions in Mr. Lasinski’s and Dr. Padilla’s rebuttal reports
`and supplemental reports.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-10-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 17 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`These opinions do not assist the trier of fact and are improper. See Creach v. Spokane Cnty., 2013
`
`2
`
`WL 12177099, at *3 (E.D. Wa. May 2, 2013) (despite permitting two experts to testify about the
`
`3
`
`same evidence, the Court held that “Mr. Vaughan may not provide expert testimony that is
`
`4
`
`needlessly cumulative or that simply bolsters Dr. Nordby’s testimony”).
`
`5
`
`6
`
`D.
`
`Dr. Jackson’s Essentiality Database is Unreliable
`
`Although Huawei’s expert Dr. Charles Jackson was tasked with providing “oversight and
`
`7
`
`assistance” in the construction of a database of allegedly every potentially essential 3G or 4G patent
`
`8
`
`in the entire world, he lacks basic knowledge of how the individual essentiality determinations were
`
`9
`
`made.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Creating a patent landscape study and individually assessing the essentiality of the patents
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`within it is a gargantuan task.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-11-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 335 Filed 07/04/18 Page 18 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Dr. Jackson could not have possibly overseen the development of this database in a reliable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`manner.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The reality is that Concur IP did all the work and much of it for another matter in which
`
`13
`
`neither Samsung nor Dr. Jackson were involved.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`