Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 19350
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ARM LTD., a U.K. corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INC., a Delaware corporation,
`QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and NUVIA, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 22-1146-MN
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`ARM LTD’S OPENING OMNIBUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTIONS TO
`EXCLUDE AND STRIKE CERTAIN EXPERT OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY OF
`MURALI ANNAVARAM, PATRICK KENNEDY, JOHN COATES,
`AND JOEL STECKEL
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093)
`Robert M. Vrana (No. 5666)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`agaza@ycst.com
`rvrana@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arm Ltd.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Daralyn J. Durie
`Joyce Liou
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 268-7000
`ddurie@mofo.com
`jliou@mofo.com
`
`Erik J. Olson
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 813-5600
`ejolson@mofo.com
`
`Kyle W.K. Mooney
`Kyle D. Friedland
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 336-4092
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 19351
`
`kmooney@mofo.com
`kfriedland@mofo.com
`
`Scott F. Llewellyn
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`4200 Republic Plaza
`370 Seventeenth Street
`Denver, CO 80202
`(303) 592-2204
`sllewellyn@mofo.com
`
`Nicholas Rylan Fung
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 892-5348
`nfung@mofo.com
`
`Daniel P. Muino
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2100 L Street, NW
`Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20037
`(202) 887-1501
`dmuino@mofo.com
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 19352
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. ii
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ................................................................. 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The Court Should Exclude Dr. Annavaram’s Opinions ........................................ 6
`1.
`Dr. Annavaram’s Legal Interpretations Are Inadmissible. ........................ 6
`a.
`Dr. Annavaram’s Opinion That “No Core Was an
` Under the Nuvia ALA.” ................. 7
`Dr. Annavaram’s Opinions Regarding Requirements
`“Under the Nuvia ALA” or “Under the Qualcomm ALA.” .......... 8
`Dr. Annavaram’s Opinions Regarding the Swap Out .................. 10
`Dr. Annavaram’s Interpretations of the ALAs Should Be
`Excluded Because He Is Not Qualified ....................................... 10
`Dr. Annavaram’s
` Opinions ............................................. 11
`a.
`All Pennypack Factors Weigh in Favor of Excluding Dr.
`Annavaram’s Untimely Opinions and Disclosures ...................... 11
`(i)
`The late disclosure is prejudicial to Arm. ........................ 12
`(ii)
`Arm cannot cure the resulting prejudice. ......................... 13
`(iii)
`The untimely opinions would disrupt the case. ............... 13
`(iv)
`The untimely opinions were made in bad faith. ............... 13
`(v)
`The untimely opinions are not important. ........................ 14
`The Untimely Opinion Are Unsupported Under FRE
`702(b). .......................................................................................... 14
`The Court Should Exclude Dr. Kennedy’s Opinions........................................... 15
`1.
`Dr. Kennedy’s Opinion That Arm’s Damages Are Quantifiable
`Relies on Inadmissible Rule 408 Settlement Negotiations ...................... 15
`Dr. Kennedy’s Counterclaim Opinion That Defendants’ Damages
`Are Quantifiable Does Not Actually Provide a Damages Number ......... 16
`The Court Should Exclude Mr. Coates’s Opinions ............................................. 17
`1.
`Mr. Coates Is Not Qualified to Opine About IP Licensing and
`Negotiation Theory .................................................................................. 17
`
`b.
`
`c.
`d.
`
`b.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 19353
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`2.
`
`b.
`
`Mr. Coates Usurps the Roles of the Court and the Trier of Fact ............. 20
`a.
`Mr. Coates’s Opinions on the Admissibility and Proper
`Scope of Expert Opinion Are Themselves Inadmissible ............. 21
`Mr. Coates’s Opinions on the Sufficiency of Evidence and
`Credibility Are Inadmissible ........................................................ 21
`Mr. Coates’s Factual Narrative is Improper. ............................... 23
`c.
`Mr. Coates’s “Anti-Assignment” Opinions Will Not Assist the
`Trier of Fact ............................................................................................. 24
`The Court Should Exclude Dr. Steckel’s Opinions ............................................. 25
`1.
`The Court Should Exclude Dr. Steckel’s Opinion that Dr. Dhar
`“Does Not Meet the Standards for a Rigorous Scientific Analysis
`Under Accepted Industry Practices and Academic Guidelines” .............. 25
`The Court Should Exclude Dr. Steckel’s Opinions Regarding the
`Sufficiency and Credibility of Evidence that Dr. Dhar Relies Upon ....... 26
`The Court Should Exclude Dr. Steckel’s Fair Use Opinions ................... 27
`3.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 28
`
`D.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 19354
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. Andor Health, LLC,
`C.A. No. 21-704-MAK, 2022 WL 3021560 (D. Del. July 29, 2022) ..............................6, 7, 10
`
`Amorgianos v. Nat’l RR Passenger Corp.,
`303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................17
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`C.A. No. 12-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 794328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014) .................................15
`
`Astrazeneca LP v. Breath Ltd.,
`C.A. No. 08-1512, 2014 WL 4798477 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2014) ..............................................12
`
`Berckeley Inv. Grp. Ltd. v. Colkitt,
`455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006)...............................................................................................20, 26
`
`Bornstein v. Monmouth Cnty. Sheriff’s Off.,
`658 F. App’x 663 (3d Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................10
`
`Bradbury v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
`815 F.2d 1356 (10th Cir.1987) ................................................................................................15
`
`Bridgestone Sports Co. Ltd. v. Acushnet Co.,
`C.A. No. 05-132-JJF, 2007 WL 521894 (D. Del. Feb. 15, 2007)............................................12
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Dunlop Slazenger Group Ams., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 01-669-KAJ, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25625 (D. Del. May 21, 2003) .....................27
`
`Chemipal Ltd. v. Slim-Fast Nutritional Foods Int’l, Inc.,
`350 F. Supp. 2d 582 (D. Del. 2004) .........................................................................................22
`
`Crockett v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`No. 19-276, 2023 WL 2187641 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 23, 2023) ........................................................19
`
`Dalgic v. Misericordia Univ.,
`No. 16-cv-0443, 2019 WL 2867236 (M.D. Pa. July 3, 2019) .................................................23
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Dow Chem. Can. Inc. v. HRD Corp.,
`656 F. Supp. 2d 427 (D. Del. 2009), aff’d, 587 F. App’x 741 (3d Cir. 2014) ...........................8
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 19355
`
`
`Flickinger v. Toys “R” Del., Inc.,
`492 F. App’x 217 (3d Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................6
`
`FTC v. Simple Health Plans LLC,
`C.A. No. 18-62593, 2021 WL 810262 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2021) .............................................23
`
`Gemak Tr. v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC,
`C.A. No. 18-1855-RGA, 2020 WL 4284973 (D. Del. July 27, 2020) .....................................14
`
`Gilliland v. Hergert,
`C.A. No. 05-1059, 2007 WL 4105223 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007) ..............................20, 23, 26
`
`Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corp.,
`C.A. No. 15-897-EJW, 2024 WL 474846 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2024) .............................................5
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Telit IOT Sols., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 20-1708-CFC, 2023 WL 8559025 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2023) .....................................20
`
`Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corp.,
`112 F.3d 710 (3d Cir. 1997).....................................................................................................12
`
`Meadows v. Anchor Longwall & Rebuild, Inc.,
`306 F. App’x 781 (3d Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................14, 28
`
`Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n,
`559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1977)...............................................................................................11, 12
`
`Olin Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
`603 F. Supp. 445 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)...........................................................................................15
`
`In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.,
`35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994)...................................................................................................6, 25
`
`Pell v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
`231 F.R.D. 186 (D. Del. 2005) ............................................................................................... 22
`
`Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Norma Espinosa 2007-1 Ins. Tr.,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 628, 634-35 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2014) ..............................................................21
`
`In re Puda Coal Sec. Inc., Litig.,
`30 F.Supp.3d 230 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ....................................................................................19, 20
`
`Romano v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (USA),
`C.A. No. 19-21147, 2022 WL 1447733 (S.D. Fla. May 9, 2022) .....................................22, 26
`
`Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`52 F. Supp. 3d 715 (E.D. Pa. 2014) .............................................................................20, 22, 26
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 19356
`
`
`S.E.C. v. Tourre,
`950 F. Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ......................................................................................23
`
`Secured Sys. Tech., Inc. v. Frank Lill & Son, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 08-6256, 2012 WL 6628878 (W.D.N.Y. 2012) .......................................................22
`
`Shire ViroPharma Inc. v. CSL Behring LLC,
`C.A. No. 17-414-MSG, 2021 WL 1227097 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2021)......................................18
`
`Surace v. Caterpillar, Inc.,
`111 F.3d 1039 (3d Cir. 1997)...................................................................................................18
`
`U.S. v. Leo,
`941 F.2d 181 (3d Cir. 1991)...............................................................................................22, 23
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. Werner Enters.,
`C.A. No. 10-503-SLR, 2013 WL 4786119 (D. Del. Sep. 9, 2013)..........................................12
`
`Withrow v. Spears,
`967 F. Supp. 2d 982 (D. Del. 2013) ...................................................................................24, 25
`
`Yazujian v. PetSmart,
`729 F. App’x 213 (3d. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................20
`
`In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`858 F.3d 787 (3d Cir. 2017).....................................................................................................16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 408 .......................................................................................................................2, 15
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .................................................................................................................... passin
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ...........................................................................................................................11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ...........................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 19357
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`On August 31, 2022, Arm filed this action against Qualcomm, Inc., Qualcomm
`
`Technologies, Inc., and Nuvia, Inc. (“Defendants” or “Qualcomm”) for breach of contract and
`
`trademark infringement. (D.I. 1.) On September 30, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer to the
`
`Complaint and Counterclaims. (D.I. 12.) On October 26, 2022, Defendants filed Amended
`
`Counterclaims. (D.I. 18.) On November 15, 2022, Arm filed its Answer to Defendants’
`
`Amended Counterclaims. (D.I. 23.) Fact discovery on Arm’s claims closed on November 17,
`
`2023, and expert discovery closed on May 3, 2024. (See D.I. 319.) On March 6, 2024, Magistrate
`
`Judge Hatcher granted in part Defendants’ request to amend their Counterclaims (D.I. 295), and
`
`Defendants filed a new Answer and Second Amended Counterclaims on March 13, 2024. (D.I.
`
`300.) On April 4, 2024, Arm filed its Answer to Defendants’ Second Amended Counterclaims.
`
`(D.I. 318.) Fact discovery on Defendants’ Second Amended Counterclaims closed on May 10,
`
`2024. (D.I. 319.) Expert discovery on the Second Amended Counterclaims closed on July 2,
`
`2024. (Id.) The pretrial conference is set for November 20, 2024, and trial is set for December
`
`16, 2024. (Id.)
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Defendants should be precluded from presenting evidence, testimony, or argument at trial
`
`relating to the improper opinions of their experts. Defendants’ experts submitted reports that
`
`contain opinions that invade the role of the Court and trier of fact, rely on inadmissible evidence,
`
`are unreliable, are legal opinions, and/or are not helpful to the trier of fact.
`
`Defendants’ technical expert, Dr. Murali Annavaram, submitted reports that contain legal
`
`opinions. These opinions should be excluded because they invade the role of the Court. Dr.
`
`Annavaram also disclosed a new opinion for the first time in his reply report. It should be
`
`excluded because it is untimely, unsupported by code analysis, and Defendants’ delayed
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 19358
`
`
`disclosure is prejudicial to Arm.
`
`Defendants’ damages expert, Dr. Patrick Kennedy, submitted a rebuttal report for Arm’s
`
`breach of contract claims in which he opines that Arm’s damages from Defendants’ breach can
`
`be quantified. Dr. Kennedy’s opinions, however, rely on inadmissible Rule 408 settlement
`
`discussions, including documents that are clearly marked as confidential Rule 408 settlement
`
`communications, for the purposes of opining on damages and monetary relief. His reliance on
`
`such settlement communications warrants exclusion of his rebuttal opinions.
`
`Dr. Kennedy also submitted opening and reply reports on Defendants’ counterclaims that
`
`set forth a purported methodology for calculating Defendants’ alleged damages. But Dr.
`
`Kennedy does not actually apply his methodology to arrive at any damages number. His failure
`
`to reliably apply his methodology to the facts of the case warrants exclusion.
`
`Defendants’ purported licensing expert, Mr. John Coates, submitted a rebuttal report that
`
`responds to Mr. Subramanian, Plaintiff’s expert on intellectual property licensing and negotiation
`
`theory. But Mr. Coates has no experience with intellectual property licensing and is not qualified
`
`to provide expert testimony on negotiation theory. Moreover, his statements regarding the
`
`sufficiency of evidence and witness credibility improperly usurp the roles of the Court and trier
`
`of fact. His opinion regarding “change of control” provisions is a straw-man, which is not
`
`responsive to Mr. Subramanian’s opinions. Finally, his free-standing factual narrative is an
`
`improper and inadmissible effort to summarize the evidence for the jury.
`
`Defendants’ trademark expert, Dr. Joel Steckel, submitted a rebuttal report that purports
`
`to opine on trademark issues. But Dr. Steckel merely opines on the sufficiency of the evidence
`
`cited by Dr. Dhar and whether Dr. Dhar’s analysis meets the Daubert standard. Dr. Steckel’s
`
`opinions improperly usurp the roles of the Court and trier of fact, and should be excluded.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 19359
`
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`On December 20, 2023, Arm served the opening expert reports of its technical experts
`
`Dr. Robert Colwell and Dr. Mike Chen, remedies expert Todd Schoettelkotte, licensing expert
`
`Guhan Subramanian, and trademark expert Dr. Ravi Dhar.
`
`Drs. Colwell and Chen analyzed relevant source code, known as “RTL,” and provided
`
`opinions on the technology at issue, including opinions that Nuvia’s CPU, code named
`
`“
`
`” was designed to implement Arm’s architecture and was incorporated into
`
`Qualcomm’s products. (See, e.g., Colwell Rpt. ¶¶ 156-167 (Ex. 1); Chen Rpt. ¶¶ 18-19 (Ex. 2).)1
`
`Mr. Schoettelkotte provided opinions regarding the appropriate remedies for Arm’s
`
`claims, including his opinion that monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Arm for
`
`Defendants’ breach of the relevant Nuvia architecture license agreement (“ALA”). (See, e.g.,
`
`Schoettelkotte Rpt. ¶ 69 (Ex. 3).) Mr. Schoettelkotte also opined that the monetary damages to
`
`Arm caused by Defendants’ breach cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Subramanian provided opinions regarding the licenses at issue in the case, including
`
`that (1) the Nuvia ALA’s termination provisions are consistent with the business objectives of
`
`change in control provisions and negotiation principles, and (2) as a matter of negotiation theory,
`
`it is not feasible to predict the outcome of a hypothetical negotiation between Qualcomm and
`
`Arm over a transfer of Nuvia’s ALA to Qualcomm. (See, e.g., Subramanian Rpt. ¶ 19 (Ex. 4).)
`
`Dr. Dhar provided opinions regarding the Arm trademarks at issue, including that the
`
`trademarks confer value in the market and that Defendants’ unauthorized use of the trademarks is
`
`likely to cause confusion. (See, e.g., Dhar Rpt., ¶¶ 13-16 (Ex. 5).)
`
`On December 20, 2023, Defendants served the opening expert report of their technical
`
`
`1 All cites of the form “Ex. [X]” are to the Declaration of Nicholas Fung, filed herewith.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 19360
`
`
`expert, Dr. Annavaram, regarding Qualcomm’s alleged efforts to comply with the Nuvia ALA
`
`termination provisions. (Annavaram Rpt. ¶¶ 73-124 (Ex. 6).) On February 27, 2024, Defendants
`
`served rebuttal expert reports from Dr. Annavaram, Dr. Kennedy, Mr. Coates, and Dr. Steckel.
`
`Dr. Annavaram’s rebuttal report provided opinions regarding definitions of terms in the
`
`Nuvia ALA, the requirements under the Nuvia and Qualcomm license agreements, and whether
`
`Qualcomm’s actions fell under the Nuvia or Qualcomm agreements. (Annavaram Rbt. Rpt. ¶¶ 3,
`
`4, 9, 13, 15-18, 53, 54, 78-80, 87, 88, 91, 93, 110, 115, 122, 123, 145, 216-229, 252, 284, 304,
`
`318, § VI.E (Ex. 7).) Rather than provide technical opinions based on his technical training, Dr.
`
`Annavaram instead provided legal opinions regarding contract interpretation.
`
`Dr. Kennedy’s rebuttal report opines that Arm’s damages from Defendants’ breach of the
`
`Nuvia ALA can be quantified. (Kennedy Rbt. Rpt. ¶¶ 70-90 (Ex. 8).) Dr. Kennedy’s opinions,
`
`however, rely on Arm’s settlement proposals to resolve the parties’ dispute arising from
`
`Qualcomm’s failure to obtain consent to the assignment of the Nuvia ALA to Qualcomm. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 73-90.) Dr. Kennedy also opines that various methodologies exist to quantify damages, but he
`
`does not apply these methodologies to arrive at an actual damages number. (Id. ¶¶ 91-116.)
`
`Mr. Coates’s rebuttal report provides no affirmative opinions, restricting himself to
`
`criticism of Mr. Subramanian. Mr. Subramanian opines on intellectual property licensing and
`
`negotiation theory. Mr. Coates in an expert in neither. Rather, Mr. Coates is a lawyer and draws
`
`primarily on his work as a corporate lawyer, an SEC lawyer, and law professor for his opinions.
`
`He provides personal opinions about the sufficiency of the evidence on which Mr. Subramanian
`
`relied, the credibility of witnesses on whom Mr. Subramanian relied, and whether Mr.
`
`Subramanian’s opinions are admissible. (See, e.g., Coates Rbt. Rpt. ¶ 84 (opining that Mr.
`
`Subramanian’s conclusions are “unfounded and speculative.”), ¶ 122 (“[I]t appears that Professor
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 19361
`
`
`Subramanian’s conclusion consists of a legal opinion that is not derived from expertise in
`
`negotiation theory or transactional practice.”) (Ex. 10).) Mr. Coates also devotes seventeen pages
`
`to a personal summary of alleged facts compiled from materials given to him by counsel and
`
`assumptions that counsel asked him to make. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-73.) The end result is a biased and
`
`incomplete narrative, akin to an opening statement.
`
`Dr. Steckel’s rebuttal report regarding Arm’s trademarks similarly asserts that (1) Dr.
`
`Dhar does not meet the standard for scientific rigor, and (2) Dr. Dhar’s opinions have “no valid
`
`support” and are “speculative.” (Steckel Rbt. Rpt. ¶¶ 23, 29-36, 38, 41, 44, §§ III, IV (Ex. 11).)
`
`On March 25, 2024, Defendants served the reply report of Dr. Annavaram. Dr.
`
`Annavaram’s reply report disclosed, for the first time, opinions relating to a
`
` that
`
`Dr. Colwell had addressed in his opening report. (Annavaram Reply Rpt. ¶¶ 19-35 (Ex. 12).)
`
`On May 20, 2024, Defendants served the opening report of Dr. Kennedy relating to
`
`Defendants’ counterclaims. Dr. Kennedy’s report sets forth a purported methodology for
`
`calculating Defendants’ alleged damages that requires, among other things, the identification of
`
`relevant Arm licenses and apportionment of the product features at issue. (Kennedy Rpt. ¶¶ 57-
`
`64 (Ex. 13).) Dr. Kennedy, however, does not apply his methodology to arrive at any damages
`
`number and fails to conduct the very apportionment that he calls for. (Id. ¶ 66.) On June 24,
`
`2024, Defendants served the reply report of Dr. Kennedy relating to Defendants’ counterclaims.
`
`(Kennedy Reply Rpt. ¶¶ 6-26 (Ex. 20).)
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`The proponent of expert opinion testimony bears the burden of establishing the
`
`admissibility of the testimony by a preponderance of the evidence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 n.10 (1993); Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corp., C.A. No. 15-
`
`897-EJW, 2024 WL 474846, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2024). Expert testimony is admissible only if
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 19362
`
`
`the proponent demonstrates that it is (i) based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized
`
`knowledge” that will assist the trier of fact; (ii) “based on sufficient facts or data”; (iii) “the
`
`product of reliable principles and methods”; and (iv) reliably applies “the principles and methods
`
`to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702; see Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589-97; see also, In re Paoli
`
`R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 745 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[A]ny step that renders the [expert’s]
`
`analysis unreliable under the Daubert factors renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible.”).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`The Court Should Exclude Dr. Annavaram’s Opinions
`A.
`Dr. Annavaram’s Legal Interpretations Are Inadmissible.
`1.
`Dr. Annavaram repeatedly relies on a personal interpretation of the Nuvia and Qualcomm
`
`ALA, which should be excluded as improper legal opinions. “[A]n expert witness is prohibited
`
`from rendering a legal opinion. Such testimony is prohibited because it would usurp the District
`
`Court’s pivotal role in explaining the law to the jury.” See Flickinger v. Toys “R” Del., Inc., 492
`
`F. App’x 217, 224 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Berckeley Inv. Grp. Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 217
`
`(3d Cir. 2006)). Courts “largely permit the parties’ technology experts to testify but exclude
`
`opinions beyond their qualifications and to the extent the opinions constitute improper legal
`
`opinions or opinions on intent or state of mind.” Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. Andor Health,
`
`LLC, C.A. No. 21-704-MAK, 2022 WL 3021560, at *1 (D. Del. July 29, 2022).
`
`Dr. Annavaram improperly provides legal opinions regarding (1) what constitutes an
`
`“
`
` under the Nuvia ALA” (Ex. 7 ¶¶ 16-18, 81, 216-229); (2) the
`
`legal requirements under the Nuvia ALA and Qualcomm ALA (id. ¶¶ 15, 91, 145, 252, 284, 304,
`
`318); and (3) whether code downloaded by Qualcomm falls under the Nuvia ALA or Qualcomm
`
`ALA as a matter of law (Ex. 6 ¶¶ 3, 4, 53, 54, 78, 79, 80, 87, 88, 91, 93, 110, 115, 122, 123; Ex.
`
`7 ¶¶ 9, 321; Ex. 12 at ¶¶ 9, 13, 36-70). These improper legal opinions should be excluded.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 19363
`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 14 of 38 PagelD #: 19363
`
`a.
`
`at “No Core Was an|Under the Nuvia ALA”
`Dr. Annavaram’s opinion regarding whatconstitutes anPo
`
`>
`
`ini
`
`Under the Nuvia ALA”should be excluded as an improperlegal opinion.“It is well-established
`
`‘the law of contract interpretation .
`
`.
`
`. firmly prohibits expert testimonyas to legal duties,
`
`standards or ramifications arising from a contract.’” A//scripts Healthcare, 2022 WL 3021560, at
`
`*44 (excluding statement“/a/nder the Marketing Services Agreement, Andor could marketits
`
`ThinkAndor and AndorNowsolutions to Allscripts clients” (emphasis added)) (citation omitted).
`
`Dr. Annavaram’s Rebuttal Report contains legal opinions regarding whether Nuvia’s
`
`CPU design was an_ under the Nuvia ALA:
`
`e
`
`“As I detail below in Section VI, thePo (as existing at the time ofthe
`Nuvia acquisition) was not anPo underthe Nuvia ALA.” (Ex.
`
`7 § 16 (emphasis added); see also id. § 17.)
`
`e
`
`“Each ofthe Qualcomm Product Designs developedafter thePo (as
`existing at the time ofthe Nuvia acquisition) are noi thePo
`|| orPo obtained wnderthe Nuvia ALA.” (Id. § 18 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
`The legal nature of Dr. Annavaram’s opinionsis confirmed in Section VIE.of his report.
`
`There, Dr. Annavaram explicitly states: “Jn my opinion, no Qualcomm Core wasanP|
`Po underthe Nuvia ALA.” (Id. § 217 (emphases added).) Dr. Annavaram’s opinions
`
`are rooted in his personal, legal interpretation of the Nuvia ALA:
`
`
`[I]t is myopinionthat neither the
`
`acquisition) nor any Qualcomm Core wasan
`
`the Nuvia ALA, based onthe requirements ofan
`listed at a in the Nuvia ALA Annex 1, priorto the termination of the Nuvia ALA
`agreement.
`including because no Qualcomm Core has ever
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 19364
`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 15 of 38 PagelD #: 19364
`
`(Id. § 229 (emphases added).)
`
`Elsewhere in Section VI.E of his Rebuttal Report, Dr. Annavaram again confirmsthat his
`
`opinionsrely on his legal interpretation of the Nuvia ALA:
`
`Underthe Nuvia ALA Annex ]. an
`
`which requires
`
`(Id. § 218 (emphasis added).) Dr. Annavaram analyzes correspondence between Arm and
`
`Qualcomm underhis legal interpretation ofPo (Id. §§| 219-228.)
`
`Courts in this district have excluded such contract interpretations by experts. See Dow Chem.
`
`Can. Inc. v. HRD Corp., 656 F. Supp. 2d 427, 436 (D. Del. 2009), aff'd, 587 F. App’x 741 (3d
`
`Cir. 2014) (striking opinion regarding contract requirements).
`
`Thus, the Court should exclude paragraphs 16, 17, 81, and 216 to 229 of his Rebuttal
`
`Report.
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Annavaram’s Opinions Regarding Requirements
`“Under the Nuvia ALA”or “Under the Qualcomm ALA”
`
`Dr. Annavaram provides several legal opinions based onhis interpretation of whatis
`
`required “under” the Nuvia ALA as compared to the Qualcomm ALA.As support, Dr.
`
`Annavaram either provides no citation or cites to documents that do not refer to the Nuvia or
`
`Qualcomm ALAs.The statements reflect Dr. Annavaram’s own conclusionsas to the meaning of
`
`each ALAand should be excluded.
`
`Paragraph 15 of Dr. Annavaram’s rebuttal report states that “[t]he Qualcomm Product
`
`Designs cannotiPo underthe Nuvia ALA based on any use
`ofportions ofthePo codebase in Qualcomm Product Designs.” (Ex. 7 § 15
`
`(emphasis added).) Dr. Annavaram providesno cite to support this statement.
`
`In paragraph 91 of his rebuttal report, Dr. Annavaram purports to provide a timeline of
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 19365
`
`
`events, but in doing so, he concludes that, as a matter of law, these events fall under the
`
`Qualcomm ALA instead of the Nuvia ALA:
`
`• “On February 1, 2022, Qualcomm submitted to Arm
`
` under the Qualcomm ALA without
`
`
`
` (Id. ¶ 91
`
`(emphasis added).)
`
`• “On February 4, 2022, ARM
`
` under the Qualcomm ALA.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
`• “On March 21, 2022, Qualcomm submitted
`
` under the Qualcomm ALA.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`
`
`The remainder of Dr. Annavaram’s rebuttal report is littered with impermissible legal
`
`opinions. In paragraph 145, he concludes that Defendants’
`
` was designed “by
`
`Nuvia and Qualcomm independently from any
`
` under their respective ALAs.”
`
`(Id. ¶ 145 (emphasis added).) In paragraph 252, he concludes that Qualcomm’s products “do not
`
`include microarchitecture
`
`
`
` provided
`
`under the Nuvia ALA.” (Id. ¶ 252 (emphasis added).) In paragraph 284, he concludes that
`
`
`
`
`
` under their respective
`
`ALAs,” and that Nuvia and Qualcomm’s efforts were done “under their respective ALAs.” (Id. ¶
`
`284 (emphasis added).) In paragraph 304, he concludes that “Qualcomm Cores were developed
`
`under the Qualcomm ALA.” (Id. ¶ 304 (emphasis added).) In paragraph 318, he concludes that
`
`“[a]ll of the development work on
`
` occurred at Qualcomm under the Qualcomm
`
`ALA” and that “
`
` does not
`
`
`
` under the
`
`Nuvia ALA.” (Id. ¶ 318 (emphases added).) Dr. Annavaram does not cite to any evidence to
`
`support these statements, confirming their improper legal nature.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01146-MN Document 398 Filed 07/22/24 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 19366
`
`
`c.
`Dr. Annavaram’s opening report relating to Arm’s claims opines that, after Qualcomm
`
`Dr. Annavaram’s Opinions Regarding the Swap Out
`
`acquired Nuvia,
`
` (i.e., the “Swap Out”). The entire premise
`
`
`
`of Dr. Annavaram’s opinion, however, is based on an improper legal conclusion.
`
`Dr. Annavaram defines “Qualcomm-sourced ARM RTL” as “ARM RTL downloaded
`
`under Qualcomm’s license through ARM Connect using Qualcomm login credentials.” (Ex. 6 ¶
`
`4 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 53.) Nowhere does Dr. Annavaram explain his basis for
`
`concluding that ARM RTL was downloaded under a particular license. Accordingly, Dr.
`
`Annavaram’s opinions that rely on his improper legal conclusion regarding “Qualcomm-sourced
`
`ARM RTL” should be excluded. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4, 53, 54, 78-80, 87, 88, 91, 93, 110, 115, 122, 123;
`
`Ex. 7 ¶¶ 9, 321; Ex. 12 ¶¶ 9, 13, 36-70.) See Allscripts, 2022 WL 3021560, at *44.
`
`d.
`
`Dr. Annavaram’s Interpretations of the ALAs Should Be
`Excluded Because He Is Not Qualified
`
`Should this Court determine that any of Dr. Annavaram’s opinions above do not
`
`con