Golden Bridge Technology Inc. v. AT & T Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 261 MOTION Defendant Apple Inc.'s Daubert Motion ; denying 267 MOTION in Limine Daubert Motion to Exclude and Strike Portions of the Testimony of Dr. Apostolos K. Kak aes, Ph.D.; granting 259 MOTION in Limine Daubert Motion to Exclude and Strike Portions of the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Anthony Acampora; denying 236 MOTION to Strike 224 Opening Brief, 225 Appendix (DEFENDANT APPLE INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE GBT'S UNTIMELY EXPERT OPINIONS AND MATERIALS). Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 4/9/2013. (nmfn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GOLDEN BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY,
) Civ. No. 10-428-SLR
APPLE INC., et al.,
At Wilmington this
C\1t' day of April 2013, having considered defendant Apple
Inc.'s ("Apple's") and Golden Bridge Technology, Inc.'s ("GBT's") various motions to
exclude or strike expert testimony (D.I. 236, 259, 261, 267);
IT IS ORDERED that said motions are granted in part and denied in part, as
1. Background. GBT filed the instant action against Apple and other
defendants alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,267 C1 ("the '267 patent"),
as reexamined, and 7,359,427 ("the '427 patent") (collectively, "the patents-in-suit").
(D.I. 1)1 GBT has asserted the same patents-in-suit against other defendants in a
separate case before this court, captioned Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v.
Amazon.com Inc. (Civ. No. 11-165, D.l. 1) Following a status conference held by the
court, the parties jointly stipulated to consolidate claim construction proceedings and to
Unless otherwise noted, D.l. numbers refer to docket items in the instant case,
Civ. No. 10-428.
stay all claims other than those asserted against Apple. (D.I. 178; Civ. No. 11-165, D.l.
244) Before the court are four motions to exclude or strike testimony: Apple's motion
to strike GBT's untimely expert opinions and materials (D.I. 236); Apple's Daubert
motion to exclude certain opinions of Dr. Branimir Vojcic, Melvin Garner, and Dr.
Charles Boncelet (D.I. 261 ); GBT's Daubert motion to exclude and strike portions of Dr.
Anthony Acampora's opinions and testimony ("GBT's first Daubert motion") (D. I. 259);
and GBT's Daubert motion to exclude and strike portions of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes'
testimony ("GBT's second Daubert motion"). (D. I. 267)
2. Legal standard. The Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Ph arm., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 600 (1993), made clear that courts have to play a gatekeeping role with
respect to experts. According to the Supreme Court, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence 2 is the primary locus of the gatekeeping role. Pursuant to Rule 702, a party
can offer testimony of an expert witness at trial so long as the expert is qualified, the
methodology the expert uses is reliable, and the opinion fits the facts of the case. See
Elcock v. Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734, 741 (3d Cir. 2000). A trial judge, then, is tasked
with being a " 'gatekeeper' to ensure that 'any and all expert testimony is not only
Rule 702 provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1)
the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is
the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has
applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. § 702.
relevant, but also reliable."' Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir.
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D), parties must disclose expert
testimony "at the times and in the sequence that the court orders." On the other hand,
if a party "learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete
or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made
known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing," it must
supplement or correct its disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). When expert testimony is
not timely disclosed, the court has the authority to exclude it from evidence. See United
States v. 68.94 Acres of Land, 918 F.2d 389, 396 (3d Cir. 1990). However, "the
exclusion of otherwise admissible testimony because of a party's failure to meet a
timing requirement is a harsh measure .... " Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 457,
463 (D. Del. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Dow Chern. Co. v. Nova
Chems. Corp., 2010 WL 2044931, at *1-2 (D. Del. May 20, 2010) (calling the exclusion
of critical evidence an "extreme sanction").
4. GBT's first Daubert motion. GBT seeks to exclude or strike Dr. Acampora's
opinions regarding (1) the inventors' lack of diligence in preparing and filing the
application for the original '267 patent, and (2) failure to meet the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. (D. I. 260) Dr. Acampora is a named inventor on forty
patents in the wireless field and has reviewed GBT's patent application and inventor
testimony. (D.I. 295 at 2; D.l. 221, ex. 28 at ml333-82) He is neither a patent attorney
nor an expert in patent law and, thus, is unqualified to opine on diligence in preparing
and filing a patent application. However, the court finds that Dr. Acampora is qualified
to opine on whether claims 14, 18, and 26 of the '427 patent are invalid for failure to
meet the written description requirement. The test for the requirement is "whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art
that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date."
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane).
Therefore, the court grants GBT's first Daubert motion with respect to Dr. Acampora's
opinions on the inventors' lack of diligence but denies the motion with respect to his
opinions on written description. (D.I. 259)
5. Apple's Daubert motion. Apple's Daubert motion (D.I. 261) seeks to
exclude or strike: (1) Dr. Vojcic's rebuttal opinion regarding validity; (2) Garner's
rebuttal opinion regarding "attorney diligence"; (3) Dr. Vojcic's opinion (and untimely
supplement) regarding infringement; and (4) Dr. Boncelet's opinion (and untimely
supplement) regarding infringement. (D. I. 262) The court will address each in turn.
6. First, Apple seeks to exclude Garner's rebuttal opinion regarding attorney
diligence. Garner is a patent attorney and opined that GBT's patent attorney, Dr. David
Newman, was diligent in filing the application for the patents-in-suit as early as January
1999. The court does not find such testimony, based not on records but on
speculation, to be helpful for a jury trial. The court grants Apple's Daubert motion (D.I.
261) to the extent it seeks to exclude Garner's expert opinion regarding attorney
7. Second, Apple seeks to exclude certain testimony of GBT's experts regarding
invalidity. (D.I. 261) The court denies Apple's motion to the extent it seeks to exclude
portions of Dr. Vojcic's rebuttal expert report. Apple avers that Dr. Vojcic failed to
consider whether the inventors disclosed information that would allow a person of
ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without undue experimentation.
However, Dr. Vojcic stated in his report: "I understand that conception requires the
inventor to have a definite and permanent idea in his or her mind such that one of
ordinary skill would be able to reduce the invention to practice without undue
experimentation." (D. I. 293 at OA5,
,-r 9) Furthermore, Apple avers that Dr. Vojcic's
opinions regarding "engineering diligence" and "attorney diligence" apply an incorrect
standard for diligence because those activities were not directed to reducing the
invention to practice. (D.I. 261) The Federal Circuit has held that, "[u]nlike the legal
rigor of conception and reduction to practice, diligence and its corroboration may be
shown by a variety of activities .... " Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). The legal standard does not necessarily preclude "engineering diligence" or
"attorney diligence." The court denies Apple's Daubert motion with respect to Dr.
Vojcic's invalidity opinions.
8. Third, Apple moves to strike Dr. Vojcic's and Dr. Boncelet's opinions on
infringement on the basis that they based their opinions on incomplete tests or
erroneous claim interpretation. The experts offered their opinions before the court
issued its claim construction. To the extent Apple disputes Dr. Vojcic's and Dr.
Boncelet's opinions regarding the test results under the court's construction, such
disagreement is more properly reserved for cross-examination under the court's claim
construction. The court denies Apple's Daubert motion with respect to Dr. Vojcic's and
Dr. Boncelet's infringement opinions.
9. The parties' motions to exclude or strike testimony regarding the
definition of "bandwidth." GBT and Apple agree that the claim limitation "spreading"
means "increasing the bandwidth " but, in their infringement briefs, they disagree as to
what "bandwidth" means. Both parties have moved to exclude and strike the testimony
of the opposing party's expert regarding the definition of "bandwidth." (D.I. 236, 267)
10. In GBT's second Daubert motion, GBT does not challenge Dr. Kakaes'
qualifications but contends that the portions of his rebuttal expert report regarding the
definition of "bandwidth" are inadmissible under Daubert for being unsupported,
unreliable, or irrelevant. (D. I. 268) The court disagrees. Dr. Kakaes opines on the
common understanding of "bandwidth" to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and he
cites to various references and evidence for support. (D. I. 225 at A509-13) To the
extent GBT does not find Dr. Kakaes' citations convincing, such an issue is more
properly reserved for cross-examination. Therefore, the court denies GBT's second
Daubert motion. (D.I. 267)
11. Also related to expert opinion on the definition of "bandwidth," Apple has
moved to strike GBT's untimely expert opinions and materials. (D. I. 236) Specifically,
Apple moves to strike portions of Dr. Vojcic's declaration - submitted after the close of
expert discovery- regarding the nature and length of discrete impulses, the meaning of
"bandwidth," and Dr. Kakaes' reliance on a textbook co-authored by Dr. Vojcic. (D. I.
236; see D. I. 225,
Dr. Vojcic's opinions on these material issues, however,
were necessary to respond to criticisms lodged by Apple's expert, Dr. Kakaes, in his
rebuttal expert report. (D. I. 225 at A506-11
(,-r,-r 117, 119, 123-26) In light of Dr.
Vojcic's need to respond to Dr. Kakaes' new opinions and criticisms, the court denies
Apple's motion to strike. (D.I. 236)
12. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the court grants GBT's first
Daubert motion (0.1. 259) and grants in part Apple's Daubert motion (0.1. 261) to the
extent it relates to expert testimony on the inventors' diligence in preparing and filing the
application for the original'267 patent. In all other respects, the court denies Apple's
Daubert motion. Furthermore, the court denies Apple's motion to strike GBT's untimely
expert opinions and materials, as well as GBT's second Daubert motion. (0.1. 236,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?