Summary
This memorandum order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas resolves Samsung’s motions to strike portions of plaintiff’s expert Dr. Robert Akl’s reports. Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards, the court struck two paragraphs concerning non-infringing alternatives based on unreliable methodology but denied the remainder of the motions regarding Qualcomm source code reliance and alleged contradictions with the court’s claim construction order. The order clarifies that the expert’s testimony does not violate the prior Markman agreement distinguishing pilot symbols from replicated data.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dr. Akl's opinions concerning non-infringing alternatives were timely disclosed and sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
- Whether Dr. Akl's opinions relying on Qualcomm source code should be struck because the source code was allegedly not disclosed in Plaintiff's infringement contentions.
- Whether Dr. Akl's opinions concerning phase tracking reference symbols contradicted the court's claim construction order.
Holdings
- The opinions were timely disclosed but were not sufficiently reliable under Rule 702 and Daubert; the court struck Paragraph 452 of Dr. Akl's opening expert report and Paragraph 260 of his rebuttal expert report.
- The court declined to strike Dr. Akl's reliance on Qualcomm source code because the source code supplemented, rather than changed, Plaintiff's infringement theories, and infringement contentions disclose theories rather than all evidence supporting them.
- Dr. Akl's opinions did not violate the claim construction order, and Samsung's supplemental motion to strike was denied.
Key quotations
“Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” (I)
“The Court’s Order rejected the possibility of citing the “same thing” as both the accused pilot symbol and the accused replicated data, not that either of them happened to fit the definition of the other.” (II.C)
Factual background
Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Robert Akl, offered opinions concerning allegedly non-infringing alternatives, Qualcomm source code, and phase tracking reference symbols in a patent-infringement case. His NIA opinions relied in part on an anonymous student blog post and asserted expertise in customer perception. Samsung also argued that his source-code opinions were outside Plaintiff's infringement contentions and that his opinions concerning PTRS contradicted the court's claim construction distinguishing pilot symbols from replicated data.
Procedural history
Empire Technology Development LLC brought a patent-infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. During pretrial proceedings, Samsung moved to strike portions of Dr. Robert Akl's expert reports concerning NIAs and Qualcomm source code, and later sought supplemental relief concerning phase tracking reference symbols and the court's claim construction order. The court granted Samsung's motion in part by striking two report paragraphs, denied the supplemental motion, and denied all other requested relief.