Visteon Global Technologies, Inc. et al
OPINION AND ORDER granting 259 Motion to Exclude Dr. Joel Steckel's Conjoint Survey and Conclusions Derived therefrom ; granting 260 Motion to Exclude Peter Smith's Reasonable Royalty Calculations and Opinions Regarding Damages; gran ting 318 Motion to Strike Dr. Steckel's Declaration; granting 342 Motion to Strike Portions of Peter Smith's Expert Report; granting 255 Motion in Limine to Exclude John Lavrakas from Offering any Testimony Rebutting Survey. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
VISTEON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
AND VISTEON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-10578
Paul D. Borman
United States District Court
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
David R. Grand
United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
(1) GRANTING GARMIN’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE DR. JOEL STECKEL’S CONJOINT
SURVEY AND CONCLUSIONS DERIVED THEREFROM (ECF NO. 259) and
(2) GRANTING GARMIN’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PETER SMITH’S REASONABLE
ROYALTY CALCULATIONS AND OPINIONS REGARDING DAMAGES (ECF NO. 260);
(3) GRANTING GARMIN’S MOTION
TO STRIKE DR. STECKEL’S DECLARATION (ECF NO. 318);
(4) GRANTING GARMIN’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PETER SMITH’S EXPERT REPORT (ECF NO. 342); and
(5) GRANTING VISTEON’S DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE JOHN LAVRAKAS
FROM OFFERING ANY TESTIMONY REBUTTING SURVEY (ECF NO. 255)
In this patent infringement action, Defendant Garmin International, Inc.’s (“Garmin”) has
moved to exclude the expert opinions of Plaintiffs Visteon Global Technologies, Inc. and Visteon
Technologies, LLC’s (“Visteon”) damages experts Dr. Joel Steckel and Mr. Peter Smith. (ECF Nos.
259, 260.) Visteon has filed Responses to both motions (ECF Nos. 280, 281) and Garmin has filed
Replies (ECF Nos. 319, 320). The Court held a Daubert1 hearing on July 13, 2016, and heard
testimony from both Dr. Steckel and Mr. Smith. The parties filed post-hearing briefs on August 12,
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2016. (ECF Nos. 376, 377.)2
This is an action for patent infringement. In the claims that remain for trial, Visteon Global
contends that Garmin infringes, either directly or indirectly, U.S. Patent No. 5,544,060 (“the ‘060
patent”), U.S. Patent No. 5,654,892 (“the ‘892 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,832,408 (“the ‘408
patent”). In general, the ’060 patent is directed to a method of navigating a vehicle whereby a user
can generate an optimal path and then switch to an alternate navigation path before beginning on the
optimal path. Visteon contends that Garmin directly infringes Claims 3, 4, and 6 and indirectly
infringes Claim 3 of the ‘060 patent. In general, the ‘892 patent is directed to a method for assisting
the navigation of a vehicle whereby a complex arrow icon is generated and displayed to the driver
at a predetermined time or distance before the driver reaches a particular maneuver. Visteon
contends that Garmin directly and indirectly infringes Claim 8 of the ‘892 patent. In general, the
‘408 patent is directed to a navigation system which allows the user to search for a destination either
from a list of categories or from an alphanumeric search. Visteon contends that Garmin directly and
indirectly infringes Claims 4 and 5 of the ‘408 patent.
Visteon contends that a variety of Garmin navigation products (“the accused products”)
infringe one or more the asserted claims literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. Visteon
contends that Garmin directly infringes, actively induces infringement and/or contributorily
infringes one or more of the asserted claims of the asserted patents, and that Garmin’s infringement
is and has been willful. Visteon seeks damages in the form of a reasonable royalty for Garmin’s
The Court’s resolution of these motions, as explained in the Court’s closing footnote, resolves
several other pending motions, specifically ECF Nos. 255, 318 and 342, as discussed further infra
at footnote 10.
alleged infringement. Visteon also seeks prejudgment interest, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees,
and costs, including without limitation any fees and costs associated with participating in multiple
ex parte proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as initiated by
Garmin in this action. Garmin denies that it directly, indirectly or contributorily infringed or
induced infringement of any of the patents in suit and affirmatively asserts a host of invalidity
defenses. Garmin seeks judgment in its favor and requests that it be awarded its costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against Visteon Complaint.
With respect to Dr. Steckel, Garmin attacks the “scientific adequacy” of Dr. Steckel’s survey,
challenging aspects of the underlying design of the survey and the analysis that Dr. Steckel
employed in analyzing the data that he collected. Garmin levels three principal attacks on the
reliability of Dr. Steckel’s methods as applied in this case and to his conclusions, which Garmin
argues resulted in inflated values of the accused features “far beyond any semblance of real-world
credibility.” Garmin argues that the survey produced “economically irrational results,” attributable
to at least the following fundamental flaws: First, Garmin argues that Dr. Steckel did not survey the
actual patented functionalities but rather tested features much broader than the accused features,
leading to an overvaluation of the patented features. Second, Garmin argues that Dr. Steckel failed
to include reasonable distracter features in his product profiles, thus inordinately focusing
respondents on the patented features. And third, Garmin argues that Visteon improperly extrapolates
from Dr. Steckel’s “economic values” to support their reasonable royalty damage calculation.
With respect to Mr. Smith, Garmin levels three principal attacks on his reasonable royalty
calculation: (1) Mr. Smith’s reliance on Dr. Steckel’s Economic Values fails to apportion revenue
to the individual allegedly infringing features (as distinct from the multitude of non-patented features
in the accused devices); (2) Mr. Smith failed to properly apply the Georgia-Pacific analysis; and (3)
Mr. Smith failed to explain the methodology he applied to reach his final royalty calculation that was
revised to account for Dr. Steckel’s own revision to his Economic Values.
Dr. Steckel’s Conjoint Study
Visteon’s survey expert, Dr. Joel Steckel, is a Professor of Marketing at the Stern School of
Business, New York University, where he is the Vice Dean of Doctoral Education. Dr. Steckel
received his B.A. from Columbia University and his M.B.A., M.A., and Ph.D degrees from the
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Steckel has visiting or permanent faculty
appointments at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, the Anderson Graduate
School of Management, U.C.L.A., the Yale University School of Management and the University
of Pennsylvania Wharton School. (ECF No. 268, Garmin Index of Exhibits, Ex. E, 11/30/12
Revised Report of Joel Steckel, Ph.D ¶ 1). (“11/30/12 Steckel Report”). Dr. Steckel’s fields of
specialization include marketing strategy, marketing research, and consumer decision-making. Dr.
Steckel has taught M.B.A. students about, written textbook chapters on, and lectured executives on
conjoint analysis. Id. ¶ 3. At the Daubert hearing, Dr. Steckel first testified that this was the first
time he had performed a conjoint analysis in a patent matter, but later at the hearing recalled having
done a conjoint study in one other patent case that never went to trial.
(ECF No. 386, Sealed
Transcript of July 13, 2016 Daubert Hearing at 37:24-38:13.)
Dr. Steckel conducted a choice-based conjoint (“CBC”) consumer survey on behalf of
Visteon to attempt to determine the value that consumers place on the individual accused patented
features.3 Conjoint analysis “is based on the notion that consumers will “consider jointly” the
attributes or characteristics of a product when making their purchasing decisions.” Steckel Report
¶ 36 (emphasis in original). V. Seenu Srinivasan, a tenured Professor Emeritus at the Stanford
Graduate School of Business, and an acknowledged “father of conjoint analysis,” explained the
survey-based research approach as reported in TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp., 929 F.
Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2013):
Professor Srinivasan describes conjoint analysis as a type of survey or market
research, which, at the most general level, conceptualizes products as bundles of
attributes, treating price as an attribute. [Declaration of Professor V. Seenu
Srinivasan]. ¶ 3. Conjoint analysis uses customer surveys to determine “values” for
each attribute. By choosing among multiple bundles of attributes, survey participants
make implicit tradeoffs one would make in real-world purchasing decisions. Id. “For
example, conjoint analysis offers respondents hypothetical products in several
combinations, some of which might contain feature 1 (but not feature 2), and some
of which might contain feature 2 (but not feature 1).” Id. Professor Srinivasan
explains that by comparing respondents' choices when presented with different
features, one can estimate the quantitative values of specific features. Id. According
to Professor Srinivasan, studies have validated that this implicit tradeoff is more
reliable than asking consumers directly what they would pay for a specific feature.
929 F. Supp. 2d at 1020.
Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study was a web-based study that respondents took on their desktop
or laptop computers. Id. ¶ 42. Dr. Steckel worked with a professional survey firm, Applied
Marketing Science (“AMS”), that implemented the survey under Dr. Steckel’s direction. Id. ¶ 10.
Dr. Steckel designed and conducted two studies for Visteon. One to measure the extent to which
owners of Garmin GPS systems used the patented features (“the usage survey”) and the other to
determine the economic value, if any, that GPS owners attach to the patented features (“the conjoint
survey”). ECF No. 268, Garmin Index of Exhibits, Ex. E, 11/30/12 Revised Report of Joel Steckel,
Ph.D ¶ 8. (“Steckel Report”). Only the conjoint survey is challenged in the motions addressed in
this Opinion and Order. Garmin challenges Dr. Steckel’s usage survey in a separate motion in
limine that will be addressed in a separate Opinion and Order.
A conjoint survey typically asks study participants to compare a number of product profiles to
determine a relative value that the consumer attaches to a particular, individual feature or attribute.
“By capitalizing on respondents’ joint consideration of the various attributes for specified products,
the research is then able to analyze the response data to evaluate consumer preferences and relative
valuations for individual product attributes, combinations of product attributes, and particular
products.” Id. ¶ 36. A respondent in a conjoint consumer survey is asked to choose from among
a “choice set” of products, with each choice set described by profiles of bundled attributes. Id. ¶ 37.
For example, a conjoint exercise involving bottled water might contain attributes such as flavor,
label color, carbonation and bottle shape. Each attribute would be further defined by a set of
characteristics known as “levels,” for example the flavor attribute would have multiple mutually
exclusive possible levels, such as lemon, lime, and orange. Id.
Dr. Steckel selected six attributes to define the GPS product profiles shown to respondents
in the conjoint survey: a. Points of Interest (the ‘408 patent), b. Special Designation Selection (the
‘375 patent), c. Preview and Route Adjustment (the ‘060 patent), d. Turn Preview Display (the ‘892
patent), e. Language Display and f. Price. Id. ¶ 38. Attributes a, b, c, and d are related to the
patented features, attribute e is a “distracter,” and attribute f allows a measurement of value
associated with all of the other attributes. Id. Each attribute, with the exception of price, is defined
by two levels. Id. ¶ 39. A sample three-product profile choice task would look like this:
Having price as one of the attributes “allows for the measurement of an economic value for each
patented feature relative to appropriate reference points.” Id. ¶ 40. Dr. Steckel utilized three device
product profiles per choice task and in each instance asked the respondent to select the device that
they would be most likely to purchase. Id. ¶ 43. Respondents were shown a total of 16 choice tasks
to complete the survey. Id.
Based on the respondent’s selections from the choice sets, Dr. Steckel applied a well
established statistical analysis, utilizing the multinomial logit model employing Hierarchical Bayes
(“HB”) estimates, to determine the separate value, or “partworth,” that consumers attach to each
product attribute. Id. ¶¶ 44-45. Partworths reflect how much each attribute contributes to the overall
consumer preference for a product (here a feature) and allow the researcher to assess the relative
importance of attributes by examining the ranges of partworths. Id. ¶ 44. The partworths allow an
assessment of the importance of the features described by the attributes in consumer purchasing
decisions and allow an evaluation of the willingness of the consumer to trade off features against
price. Id. ¶ 45. Dr. Steckel used the partworths on price and the attributes to estimate the extent of
these tradeoffs for each of the patented features, resulting in an “economic value” or “EV” for the
patented feature relative to the closest allegedly non-infringing alternative. Id. ¶ 46.
All of the respondents to the conjoint survey were recruited through Survey Sampling
International (“SSI”), a company that pre-recruits potential respondents who have indicated a
willingness to participate in such market research surveys. Id. at ¶ 18. SSI respondents were invited
to take the survey based on their profile and demographics. Id. at ¶ 19. Several controls were in
place to ensure that only invited respondents could respond, that each respondent could only
complete the survey one time and that the respondent’s stated age and gender matched their profile
in the SSI database. Id. Forty respondents to the conjoint survey were excluded because their age
and gender did not match the SSI database profile. Id. ¶ 49. A total of 737 invited respondents
qualified to participate and, out of those 737, 588 respondents completed the conjoint survey
between May 7 and 11, 2012. Id. ¶ 50. The initial results from the 588 respondents who completed
the survey were screened for basic unreliability, such as completing the survey too quickly or too
slowly or with straight-line responses that demonstrate insufficient attention to the survey. Id. ¶ 52.
There were 546 respondents in the final sample set and they took an average of 27.3 minutes to
complete the survey. Id.
In designing the survey, Dr. Steckel undertook two levels of exploratory research to
determine the efficacy of the design. First, AMS interviewed 15 GPS users to determine an
appropriate vocabulary for the questionnaire based on the words and phrases commonly used by
consumers. In a second round of exploratory research, AMS interviewed 25 GPS users to ensure
that the survey set forth the closest allegedly non-infringing attribute alternative. Id. ¶55(a). In
making the final selection of non-infringing alternatives to include in the survey, Dr. Steckel was
informed by the results of his exploratory research and also was assisted by counsel for Visteon.
ECF No. 268, Garmin Index of Exhibits, Ex. F, 11/20/12 Deposition of Dr. Joel Steckel 138:25139:7. None of the individuals who participated in the exploratory research were asked to complete
the conjoint survey. Steckel Report ¶ 55(a)(iii). Before going live with the conjoint survey, Dr.
Steckel conducted a web-based pretest of 10 GPS consumers who were debriefed after they
completed survey. Id. ¶ 55(b). The survey presented video depictions of the attributes and levels,
utilizing voice-over, animation and accompanying text to enhance visual explanations. Id. ¶ 55(c).
Before beginning each choice task, respondents were given descriptions of each of the
attributes and levels through general text descriptions, video animations and charts describing the
various options that respondents would see in the upcoming choice task. Steckel Report ¶ 56. Each
respondent was then given 16 separate choice tasks, each task consisting of three different GPS
devices with various attributes and levels within those attributes, and were told to select the device
that they would be most likely to purchase and to assume that they must purchase one, i.e. there was
not a “no-purchase” option. Steckel Report ¶¶ 57, 58; Steckel Report Ex. H-19. Respondents were
told to assume that aside from the attributes identified in the choice sets, the devices were otherwise
Dr. Steckel used the data generated by the respondents across all of their choice tasks to
estimate the partworths, i.e. the value that respondents placed on each of the levels within each
attribute. Steckel Report ¶ 59. Dr. Steckel used software developed by Sawtooth Software, Inc. to
obtain individual respondent-level HB estimates of the partworths. The partworths generated by the
HB method are measured in units of consumer utility – if a consumer’s utility for attribute level A
is greater than that of attribute level B, then that consumer prefers attribute level A to attribute level
B, all else being equal. Id. In obtaining the HB estimates, Dr. Steckel constrained the partworths
on the price attribute for each respondent to be monotonic, i.e. his analysis imposed the reasonable
economic assumption that individuals prefer paying a lower price for a product than a higher price
for that same product. Id. ¶ 60.4
Dr. Steckel’s conjoint survey results indicated that the mean partworth on the attribute level
relating to the patented feature was greater in the case of each of the patented attributes than the
partworth on the level associated with the non-infringing alternative for that attribute. Steckel
Report ¶¶ 63, 64. Dr. Steckel used the respondent-level partworths on price and the other attributes
to estimate the EV of the patented features by expressing in “units of utility” as a percentage of a
reference price. Id. ¶ 66. Dr. Steckel performed this EV calculation for each respondent for each
of the patented features and then computed a simple mean EV for the presence of the patented
Although Dr. Steckel testified in his original deposition that he had applied a price constraint when
submitting his original report, it became clear under questioning that he had inadvertently failed to
do so. Dr. Steckel’s Revised Report (his 11/30/12 Report) purportedly corrected the absence of
constraints with respect to price monotonicity. See ECF No. 268, Garmin’s Index of Exhibits,
Exhibit I, Jan. 13, 2013 Deposition of Dr. Joel Steckel 298:20-300:4. Dr. Steckel also decided, as
long as he was going back to his spreadsheet to apply the price constraint, to revisit some of the
other decisions he had made, such as the original decision to bound the values from above at 20 but
not to bound them below. Steckel Dep. 309:4-310:19. Thus, in his Revised Report, Dr. Steckel
applied a lower bound of zero, thus excluding the negative economic values for an attribute (which
indicated the irrational proposition that someone would have to be paid to accept the attribute). Id.
at 309:15-311:4. Dr. Steckel testified that alternatively, the bounds on both ends could be ignored
and a median of the raw data could be taken, which would have the same effect as bounding, i.e. to
eliminate the outliers, which would result in higher economic values. Id. at 311:5-312:11. The
revised Steckel calculations had the effect that a respondent could not value a non-infringing
alternative more than the patented feature. Id. at 320:1-20. Dr. Steckel testified that applying this
upward bound is a “completely accepted practice” in conjoint analysis. Id. at 331:2-4.
feature versus its absence. This computation yielded the following results: “Respondents indicated
that they are willing to pay, on average, $13.93 for the presence of the Points of Interest Feature
(’408 patent), $14.48 for the Preview and Route Adjustment Feature (’060 patent), $11.86 for the
Special Destination Selection Feature (’375 patent), and $10.41 for the Turn Preview Display feature
(’892 patent). Id. 68.
Despite using the term “willingness to pay” in his Report, Dr. Steckel emphasized that his
economic values do not represent the actual amounts that consumers would be willing to pay for
inclusion of the patented features in a competitive market. Id. ¶ 69. Dr. Steckel expressly stated that
“it would be incorrect to suggest that these four patented features alone are responsible for $50.68
of the price of a GPS system.” Id. Dr. Steckel confirmed this understanding of his economic values
at the Daubert hearing, testifying expressly that “the Economic Values do not reflect what a
consumer would be willing to pay for the attribute in the marketplace necessarily.” Daubert Tr.
24:22-23.) “Q: Did you take any steps as part of your survey analysis to determine the price of these
features in the actual marketplace? A: I did not.” Daubert Tr. 24:24-25:1.
Responding to the Court’s inquiry as to why he elected to use only one relatively
unimportant distracter feature, i.e. language, in his study, Dr. Steckel explained that it was
unnecessary for purposes of his study to determine the actual value of the patented features to
consumers in relation to the many other non-patented features of the accused devices:
I don’t need to create the real world, completely real world trade-offs for my
purposes, for the purposes of the Study. If I were trying to project consumer choices,
so how market share might have been adjusted but for the incorporation of the patent
features, then [mulitple distracters] would have been really important, then they
would have been critical. I believe in those cases if that were my goal, Garmin’s
criticisms would be appropriate. However, that was not my goal. I am just trying
to create the trade-offs between the particular features and money without projecting
to real world choices. So I think the short answer to your question is I wasn’t trying
to project to real world choices – I don’t need to for purposes of the Study as I
Daubert Tr. 37:5-14 (alteration added).5 Dr. Steckel does suggest that the economic values do
provide an indication that in general the patented features are of significant value to consumers and
that not all GPS features are valued equally by consumers. Smith Report ¶ 69.
Visteon’s pre and post-Daubert hearing briefing makes clear, and it is undisputed, that Dr.
Steckel’s study did not attempt to determine a real world price for the four patented features, and
did not endeavor to value any non-patented features or to determine the value of the four patented
features relative to the multitude of non-patented features in the accused devices: “Garmin correctly
posits that ‘[c]onjoint surveys, when done properly, are useful for determining the relative value of
one feature to other tested features.’” (ECF No. 280, Visteon’s Resp. to Garmin’s Mot. to Exclude
Smith 5 (“Smith Resp. Br.”) (Emphasis and alteration in original). The only tested features in Dr.
Steckel’s study, apart from the unimportant language distracter, were the four patented features.
Garmin attacks several aspects of Dr. Steckel’s methodology that the Court need not address given
Visteon’s concession that Dr. Steckel attempted to apportion the value only of the four patented
features relative to each other and not relative to the many important non-patented features of the
accused devices. Had Garmin attempted to rely on Dr. Steckel’s study as a basis to apportion value
between the patented and non-patented features of the accused devices, there would have been
legitimate challenges to his work. For example, Dr. Steckel’s study failed to demonstrate any
principled basis for selecting language as the sole distracter feature, such as a phased study that
would have determined in a preliminary stage how consumers valued or ranked the patented features
relative to other important features of the accused devices, see, e.g., TV Interactive, 929 F. Supp. 2d
at 1021 (Professor Srinavasan performed a preliminary phase of his study that “asked respondents
to prioritize 18 attributes of each accused product to come up with a list of six attributes that have
similar values as the [accused] features”) (alteration added); Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
No. 10-03561, 2012 WL 850705, at * 10 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2012) (excluding expert’s conjoint
study where “the features selected to be surveyed, only seven in total, were purposely few in number
and omitted important features that would have played an important role in real-world consumers’
preferences”). Additionally, as Dr. Steckel noted himself, any conjoint study that attempted to
capture real world values would necessarily have to include a no-purchase option.
Thus, the only “value” expressed in Dr. Steckel’s economic values is the relative value of the four
asserted patented features to one another. Dr. Steckel’s conjoint results express nothing about the
value of the four patented features relative to other important features of the accused devices. “Dr.
Steckel’s conjoint analysis was used for one (and only one) purpose by Mr. Smith – to apportion the
value of the patented features relative to each other.” (ECF No. 376, Visteon’s Post-Daubert
Hearing Brief 1.) (Emphasis in original). To emphasize this point, Visteon quotes the following
from paragraph 69 of Dr. Steckel’s Report, portions of which were quoted above:
It is important to recognize that these values do not represent the actual amounts
consumers would be willing pay for the inclusion of the patented features in a
competitive market. It would be incorrect to suggest that these four patented features
alone are responsible for $50.68 of the price of a GPS system. Price is primarily
determined by three factors: consumer value, producer costs, and competition.
I studied only one, consumer value.
Smith Resp. Br. 5 (emphasis in original).
As discussed at length infra, it is Visteon’s burden in this case to tie its reasonable royalty
damage calculation to the actual incremental value of the patented features in the real world
marketplace, i.e. to establish the incremental profit that Garmin could have expected to earn from
incorporating the patented technology in these four patents into their PNDs at the time of a
hypothetical negotiation. Visteon concedes that Dr. Steckel did not attempt to do this but claims that
it has satisfied this burden through additional expert evidence provided by Mr. Peter Smith, whose
opinion builds on Dr. Steckel’s work:
[P]rice (or actual value apportioned to the patents-in-suit) can be determined when
the Economic Values are combined with producer costs and competition. With this
in mind, Mr. Smith picked up where Dr. Steckel’s analysis left off, and provided the
two other elements of the price calculation via Georgia-Pacific analysis and
Garmin’s target profit margin: producer costs and competition. . . . Garmin’s target
profit margin directly accounts for its royalty and hardware costs (producer costs)
and was derived by Mr. Smith as a first multiplier to begin to transform the
Economic Values from the theoretical consumer values to the prices attributable to
the patents-in-suit. The next factor was derived from Mr. Smith’s Georgia-Pacific
analysis which considers, among other things, competition in the industry. . . . Mr.
Smith’s analysis is solidly based on a reliable methodology for attributing value to
the patented features, and thus complies with the Court’s apportionment requirement.
Contrary to Garmin’s assertion that “Mr. Smith did not take any additional steps” to
apportion, Mr. Smith’s analysis completes the apportionment process started by Dr.
Steckel to assign value to each of the patented features.
Smith Resp. Br. 5-7 (emphasis in original).
Mr. Smith’s Reasonable Royalty Calculations
Following a finding of infringement, “the court shall award the claimant damages adequate
to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made
of the invention by the infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. “The most common method for determining
a reasonable royalty is the hypothetical negotiation approach, which ‘attempts to ascertain the
royalty upon which the parties would have agreed had they successfully negotiated an agreement
just before infringement began.’” VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (quoting Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
Utilizing the hypothetical negotiation approach, Peter Smith offers four separate reasonable royalty
calculations: (1) “use Lane Guidance and Turn Preview as a royalty value proxy;” (2) “use the
Steckel part-worths to calculate potential royalties directly;” (3) “develop a Total Available Margin
estimate;” and (4) “use the Mitac Settlement.” ECF No. 268, Garmin Index of Exhibits, Exhibit M,
9/28/12 Expert Report of Peter Smith 30-31 (“the Smith Report”). In this motion, Garmin focuses
solely on method two, the calculation that relies on the use of Dr. Steckel’s Economic Values, which
Mr. Smith describes as follows:
In this case, I took the partworths developed by Dr. Steckel, and applied a discount
factor to account for the relative negotiating strength of Visteon, as shown in my
development of the Georgia-Pacific (Exhibits 10 and 11) factors in this case. That
discount, either 0.4000 (Exhibit 10) or 0.568 (Exhibit 11), is based upon the ratio of
2.00/5.00 (Exhibit 10) or 2.84/5.00 (Exhibit 11). It is applied to an adjusted royalty
number developed by assuming a target margin to be received by Garmin for the
incorporated features that will yield a total margin equal to the actual 63.89% gross
margin received during the infringement period on sales of automotive PND
products. The estimated royalty for each patent, and the estimated total royalty
($4.94, using the results of Exhibit 10) to be paid for the four patents-in-suit is shown
in Exhibit 1.
Smith Report 30.6 (Alteration/correction added; see also Steckel Dep. 225:3-8).
Mr. Smith states that he has read Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study and that it “successfully
identified significant economic value in the patents-in-suit, and can be relied upon as a partial basis
for developing a reasonable royalty estimate for use in calculating economic damages for use by the
court in the event that it is found Defendant Garmin has infringed the patents in suit with its PND
products.” ECF No. 268, Exhibit D, Nov. 13, 2012 Deposition of Peter Smith 54:21-56:8. Mr.
Smith confirmed that Dr. Steckel calculated the consumer value of the accused features only and did
not undertake to determine the value of all features of the accused devices, which includes a
multitude of features that were not subject to challenge in this case:
Q: Did Dr. Steckel calculate the total consumer value of all features of personal
A: I believe he only talked about the patented features in his calculations; and again,
in paragraph 69, that is indicated directly.
Q: Okay. So is that correct then, Dr. Steckel did not calculate the total consumer
value of all features, including non patented features of personal navigation devices?
A: To my knowledge, he didn’t and certainly his report doesn’t say that.
Mr. Smith appears here to use the terms “part-worths” and “Economic Values” interchangeably.
Steckel Dep. 224:18-22.
Q: [B]ut Dr. Steckel did not determine a parts-worths (sic) value for all of the nonpatented features and functionalities in the PNDS?
A: That was not the objective of his study, so I’m fairly certain he didn’t.
Smith Dep. 65:9-25, 167:8-12.
Mr. Smith explained that he contacted Dr. Steckel specifically to discuss his understanding
of ¶ 69 of Dr. Steckel’s Report:
Q: I believe you said you wanted to confirm this disclaimer by Dr. Steckel in
paragraph 69 of his report, is that right?
Q: You wanted to confirm your understanding of paragraph 69 of his report?
A: I wanted to understand his disclaimer as accurately as I could, yes, and I might
add it was because I fully agreed with it. I thought, but I sure didn’t want to go off
in a direction that he would not be comfortable with.
Q: And why did you want to make sure that he would be comfortable with the
direction you were taking with the part-worth numbers?
A: Well, he’s one of the country’s, if not the world’s, leading expert in the
employment of conjoint analysis. I’m at best a layman, although I’ve used the
technique. I certainly understand it statistically, but he’s got vastly more experience
in how these outcomes are to be used and where the pitfalls are. So I wanted to be
sure I didn’t say something that would cause my words to impugn his work.
Smith Dep. 60:12-61:11.
Mr. Smith further explained the details of his conversation with Dr. Steckel regarding the
import of ¶ 69 in any attempt to utilize Dr. Steckel’s Economic Values as a base for calculating
Q: Did Dr. Steckel – did you tell Dr. Steckel how you were going to use his
A: I’ll point you to the specific passage [in ¶ 69] that I think is germane here,
because I had a specific question of him. “Price is primarily determined by three
factors,” do you see that?
A: “Consumer value, producer costs, and competition. I studied only one, consumer
value. By definition, consumer value is greater than or equal to price.”
The reason I wanted to talk to him about that is that he was not suggesting
that you couldn’t use consumer value as an indicator of what price would be. He was
simply saying you had to put in other factors to make a calculation based on that.
The two other factors that he pointed to, which were producer costs and
competition are, of course, something that anybody putting forth an opinion on
economics would have to include. You can’t simply point at consumer value and say
that’s where the price falls, and everybody that looks at conjoint that has any
sophistication whatsoever knows that those raw outputs on their own consumer value
cannot be used that way.
Q: So how did you in your analysis take into consideration the other two factors
besides consumer value; namely producer costs and competition?
A: Well, you may remember our discussion a few minutes ago about I wanted to
confirm how Garmin calculated its margins, and its royalty spreadsheets, what its
margin targets might be. That has to do with their producer costs and what their
profit targets would be. That is where I wanted to impose the discipline, if you will,
of margins and costs to any calculation of what a royalty might be. That would be
reasonable in the eyes of both Garmin and Visteon when a hypothetical negotiation
would take place.
Q: So did you use any adjustments to account for producer costs and competition?
A: You may recall that I went through an extensive analysis of Georgia Pacific
factors, which in fact are designed to provide exactly that information. That’s their
purpose is to make sure that the entire spectrum of considerations would be laid
With respect to producer costs, fortunately we have quite a bit of data on
what Garmin’s costs are. So I was able to see not only what their prices were, of
course, but what their costs were and the consequent margins that allows me to take
account of that.
Q: What did Dr. Steckel confirm for you?
A: He, being Joel Steckel, he said words, what he said to me was of course you can
get a price indicia, that is to say, what is likely to be chargeable for features like this,
by beginning with the consumer value, but you have to lay in producer costs, what
does it cost to produce that feature and competition, how much can you charge
without putting yourself in a position of being price differentiated in a negative way,
that is to say, you charge more for a particular feature than somebody else does.
You’re likely to suffer the consequences, even if the consumer already values it at
that larger number.
Q: Did Dr. Steckel provide any suggestion for how to incorporate producer costs and
Q: You determined that on your own?
A: Yes, he would have been way out of bounds telling me that.
Smith Dep. 61:12-62:25, 63:19-65:8 (quotation marks added).
From his conversations with Dr. Steckel, Mr. Smith confirmed that “you can’t use the
consumer value on its own to determine what somebody should charge for it, other than to say it
should definitely be less than that.” Smith Dep. 67:21-24. In determining how much was “less” in
this case, Mr. Smith suggests that he attempted to determine producer costs and competitive market
conditions and to apply those factors to the Economic Values to arrive at the missing “price indicia.”
Mr. Smith’s original calculations for a reasonable royalty using the Steckel Economic Values
is set forth in Exhibit 19 of Mr. Smith’s original Report. (ECF No. 268, Ex. M, Peter Smith 9/28/12
Expert Report (“Original Smith Report”), Exhibit 19 “Reasonable Royalty Estimated Using Steckel
Part-Worths and Gross Margin Target for Features”). With reference to this Exhibit 19, Mr. Smith
explains that he calculated an ultimate royalty of $4.94 per unit (unit = an accused PND device) by
“multiply[ing] Economic Values times a Target Margin times a Georgia-Pacific factor.” Daubert
Tr. 63:3-64:10 (alterations added). Taking the example of Mr. Smith’s calculation for the ‘408
patent on Exhibit 19, Smith takes Steckel’s Economic Value for the ‘408 ($13.29), applies to that
“utility value” the profit margin of .715 that he calculates Garmin would want to make on something
that it sold for that amount ($9.502) subtracts that “profit” from the “utility value” of $13.29, which
yields the “Garmin threshold” royalty number of $3.78 ($13.29 x .715 = $9.502 and $13.29 - $9.502
= $3.78). Original Smith Report Ex. 19, p. 78. Mr. Smith then adds a discount of 40% (2.00/5.00
or .40 based on his analysis of the Georgia Pacific factors that “slightly favors” Garmin) to account
for Garmin’s market power/negotiating strength (his definition of the factor of “competition”), to
arrive at a figure of $1.5149 as the adjusted reasonable royalty figure for the ‘408 patent ($3.78 x
.40 = $1.5149). Id. Mr. Smith follows this same calculation for each of Steckel’s Utility Values
(aka Economic Values) to arrive at a total Royalty Per Unit figure for the four patents in suit of
$4.94/Unit. Mr. Smith then multiplies the Royalty/Unit figure of $4.9415 by the number of units
(accused devices) sold in 2009-2011 to arrive at a total damage figure of $85,929,392.63.
The “Notes” on Mr. Smith’s Exhibit 19 explain that his 71.50% “Desired Margin” (referred
to in his footnote as a “Target Margin”) was “for features based upon actual gross margins for
Garmin automotive PNDs 2009-2011.” (Exhibit 19, Note 1.) Mr. Smith’s work reveals that he used
the following formula, utilizing the Estimated Hardware Cost and Mapping Software data set forth
on the bottom of Exhibit 19, to calculate the 71.50%:
Margintotal = XHW . MarginHW + XRY . MarginRY
Margintotal is Garmin’s overall average profit margin (63.89% from 2009-2011). XHW and XRY are
the relative proportions of hardware and royalty costs in Garmin’s accused products, as estimated
by Mr. Smith on the bottom of Exhibit 19 to be 0.66 and 0.34 respectively. Mr. Smith assumed a
constant hardware margin (MarginHW) of 60% as reflected on the bottom of Exhibit 19. Mr. Smith
then used the above formula to determine a royalty margin (MarginRY) necessary to achieve a total
margin (Margintotal) of 63.89%. The calculation yielded a royalty margin (MarginRY) of 71.50% (i.e.
solving for x: (1).6389 = .396 + .34x; (2) .6389 - .396 = .2429; and (3) .2429/.34 = 71.44%). Smith
Original Report at 78.7 Mr. Smith then used the 71.50% as his “Desired Margin” for purposes of
the calculations set forth on Exhibit 19.
Subsequently, Mr. Smith submitted a supplemental report which changed some values that
he had utilized on Exhibit 19, including: (1) adjustments to Dr. Steckel’s Economic Values, which
had increased after Mr. Smith issued his original Report based on some additional/corrective work
performed by Dr. Steckel; and (2) utilization of the single-year gross margin for 2009 rather than
the average gross margin figure for 2009-2011that Mr. Smith had utilized in preparing Exhibit 19.
ECF No. 268, Ex. O, Peter Smith 12/20/12 Report, (“Smith Supp. Report”), Ex. 4; Daubert Tr.
52:18-54:3; 75:24-78:4.8 Mr. Smith’s revised Exhibit 4 is entitled “Revised Calculations “Steckel
While Mr. Smith’s Original Report does not lay out his calculation in precisely these terms,
Garmin’s damages expert, Michael Newell, reconstructed Mr. Smith’s calculation in this format,
which Garmin set forth in its motion to exclude Smith’s opinions and testimony. See ECF No. 260,
Garmin’s Br. 20; ECF No. 268-19, Ex. S, 6/25/25 Declaration of Michael C. Newell ¶¶ 9-10.
Visteon did not challenge this interpretation of Mr. Smith’s work in its Response to Garmin’s
motion. The Court has no reason to doubt the reliability of Mr. Newell’s translation of Mr. Smith’s
work into this formula and further finds that it represents Mr. Smith’s work up to that point in a
manner that is consistent with Mr. Smith’s deposition testimony and his testimony at the Daubert
Garmin has validly noted certain discrepancies between Mr. Smith’s calculations on Exhibit 19 and
his revised calculations on Exhibit 4. In particular, Mr. Smith has never fully explained how he
arrived at his revised “Desired Margin” of 76.65%. As Mr. Newell points out, if we substitute the
revised single-year 2009 profit margin as used in Exhibit 4 for the 2009-2011 average used in
Exhibit 4, i.e. changing the actual profit margin from 63.89% to 64.06%, but apply the same
methodology for finding the “desired margin,” the result is a very small change in the “desired
margin,” i.e. from 71.5% to 72.0%, and not to the “desired margin” of 76.65% reflected on Exhibit
Part-Worths” Reasonable Royalty Estimate.” Exhibit 19 was entitled “Reasonable Royalty
Estimated Using Steckel Part-Worths and Gross Margin Target for Features.” Comparing Exhibit
19 and Exhibit 4 on their face it appears that, although some of the values have changed, the two
Exhibits calculate a royalty based on the same methodology, i.e. “Utility Value” times “Desired
Margin” times “.40 Georgia-Pacific” factor. The Exhibits contain the same five explanatory
footnotes but Exhibit 4 does not depict the estimated hardware and software/licensing costs that
appeared on Exhibit 19 and that apparently were the basis for Mr. Smith’s “Desired Margin”
calculation in Exhibit 19.
Visteon utilized Exhibit 4 as a demonstrative at the Daubert hearing to take the Court
through Mr. Smith’s revised calculation of a total reasonable royalty of $82,434,968.18. Daubert
Tr. 54:14-24. Mr. Smith testified that his calculations on Exhibit 4 factored in Garmin average
selling price for the accused devices, and Garmin’s costs to produce the accused devices, but average
selling price is not depicted as an input on either Exhibit 19 or Exhibit 4. Daubert Tr. 54:21-55:21;
78:17-79:2. When questioned by counsel for Garmin about how he calculated his new “desired
margin”of 76.65% on Exhibit 4, an increase from the “desired margin” of 71.50% on Exhibit 19,
Mr. Smith explained that he “used a different technique.” Daubert Tr. 82:25-83:6.
At the Daubert hearing, Mr. Smith attempted to explain a “different equation” that he
employed to arrive at his suggested Royalty Per Unit of $4.7334/unit for the four patented features
as set forth in revised Exhibit 4, an equation that Mr. Smith had previously discussed at his January
4. While this is certainly a troubling discrepancy that Mr. Smith never satisfactorily explains, and
while it would cause the Court concern regarding the soundness of Mr. Smith’s methodology, the
Court need not resolve this inconsistency because it finds, as discussed infra, that Mr. Smith’s
opinions and testimony must be excluded for the more fundamental reason that he utterly fails to
apportion damages to the incremental value of the four patented features.
29, 2013 Deposition. Daubert Tr. 79:3-11. Mr. Smith had some measure of difficulty articulating
this methodology, but it appears that he endeavored to answer the following question: In 2009, what
could Garmin add to their costs in the form of additional royalties at their 2009 sales price and still
maintain their overall profit margin of 64.06%? Costs, margins and sales price utilized in the
calculation were based on Garmin data relating to the entire PND device:
$35.62(Garmin’s hardware costs) + $18.20 (Garmin’s royalty costs) + x = 1 - (.6406) (2009 GM)
$162.83 (2009 Avg. Sales Price)
Daubert Tr. 54:21-57:24; 79:12-82:12; ECF No. 377, Garmin’s Post-Daubert Brief Ex. A. See also
ECF No. 268, Ex. N, 1/29/13 Smith Dep. 318:10-350:14, Ex. 14. Solving for x yielded a figure of
$4.7334, the same value Mr. Smith arrived at as his Royalty Per Unit figure on Exhibit 4 using the
Steckel Utility Values. Mr. Smith conceded at the Daubert hearing that Dr. Steckel’s Economic
Values do not figure anywhere into this “different calculation” based on Garmin’s acutal selling
price, costs and margins, which nonetheless arrives at the same Royalty Per Unit figure ($4.7334)
as his “Revised Calculations” on Exhibit 4 utilizing Dr. Steckel’s Economic Values. Daubert Tr.
82:10-15. Mr. Smith then uses the $4.7334 Royalty Per Unit figure to calculate a revised damage
figure for the four patents in suit of $82,434,968.18, a slight decrease from the $85,929,392.63
calculated on Exhibit 19. Smith Supp. Report Ex. 4.
Mr. Smith conceded that none of his calculations undertook to determine the price that
consumers would pay for the individual technology provided by the infringing features:
Q: Did you determine the portion of the price that consumers would pay for the
Q: Did you find the portion of Garmin’s revenue from selling these products that
you’ve looked at that was attributable to the patented features?
A: Not directly.
Q: Do you have any way to quantify the portion of Garmin’s revenue from the
accused products that is attributable to the patented features?
A: Yes. In fact, the approach I took called Target Margin and modified in some
respects, but the approach I took was intended to show that A., Garmin would pay
as little as possible for that which has been my experience every patent negotiation
I’ve ever been involved in – as little as possible. The same thing as a consumer
would say if you offer me a $5000 computer for 2000 and the same computer with
the same features for 1000, I will inevitably pick the $1000 one. I say yes, I’ve got
that part. So I did calculate this by saying that based upon their existing price at that
– this notion $162-plus and based upon their gross margin because I’m not really
sure what margin meant in those data, but based upon that margin which is 64%,
Garmin would not pay more for the functionality in the patents than would be
required to maintain their margins and maintain their price.
Daubert Tr. 70:17-71:11.
To arrive at his calculation of the 40% “competition” discount that he applied to his “Garmin
Threshold Margin” on Exhibits 19 and 4, Smith considered Garmin’s significant market power and
many of the Georgia Pacific factors that have been acknowledged as meaningful indicia of how
parties would behave in a hypothetical negotiation. In his deposition, Mr. Smith defended his
methodology for arriving at the values set forth on Exhibit 19 of his Report:
A: I say look, we got to keep in mind that Garmin has the whip hand here. We think
we have something to sell that is of value. We’re negotiating with them on what
they’re going to pay for it. That’s what this entire negotiation is for. We want to give
you – sell you something of value. We have to establish a price. We, however, are
Visteon, and we have no ability to help you in the marketplace. We have limited
experience with pushing this stuff out and developing new features. There’s an
expiring patent life. All of the Georgia Pacific factors that we’ve mentioned in the
past that I say add up to another discount factor, so I take not only that threshold
number, what they could pay [and still retain their .715 profit margin], but I discount
that still further by 40 percent. That comes up with the 4.9415. Then having done
that, by allocation, the adjusted value is each one of these on the far right.
So you have an adjustment for the necessary margin to sustain their average
margin, and then you have a negotiating factor applied to that. That says based on
the royalty strength of the two parties, the most you could expect Garmin to be
willing to pay, assuming these were factually the case and that everybody came with
perfect information to the negotiation, the most you could expect Garmin to be
willing to pay would be just under $5. Would we start there? Obviously, I don’t
know. But I know what I would do in preparation for a negotiation. I would do
exactly this analysis, and I would be sensitive to the threshold numbers that Garmin
was working with. I would be sensitive to the fact that they are a very powerful
factor in the marketplace. I would be sensitive to the fact that they bring lots of stuff
to bear that we can’t give them and therefore can’t expect to get value for it.
So I’ve heavy (sic) discounted the threshold value down to something I think
is much more likely to be where you’d end up. That’s the nature of the negotiation.
It carries out a margin expectation, which is the obverse of cost. Dr. Steckel’s
second admonition: You got to pay attention to what product costs, right? Then it
takes competitive factors and negotiating power of the entity that you’re talking to
and it says, okay, let’s take a look at that and adjust for those factors as well . . . .
That’s why I selected [$4.94], because it is based on objective evidence, it has the
characteristics of paying attention to Garmin’s profitability, paying attention to
Garmin’s market power, paying attention to all the other factors that bear through the
Georgia Pacific factors on a negotiation.
Smith Dep. 144:6-145:25, 146:23-147:4.
Mr. Smith testified at the Daubert hearing that he considered each of the Georgia-Pacific
factors as set forth in Exhibits 10 and 11 of his original Report and came up with the .40 discount
factor that he applied in Exhibits 19 and 4. Daubert Tr. 49:16-51:12. Mr. Smith testified that the
Georgia-Pacific factors “in part” account for competition but testified that he could not quantify the
impact of competition Dr. Steckel’s economic values, Daubert Tr. 72:21-73:5, and conceded that
the Georgia-Pacific factors could not be applied directly to convert Dr. Steckel’s economic values
into a price that consumers would pay for the infringing features. Daubert Tr. 74:6-22.
“Admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and
informed by the seminal case applying Rule 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).” In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust
Litigation, 739 F.3d 262, 267 (6th Cir. 2014). Fed. R. Evid. 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
“[T]he rules of evidence - especially Rule 702 - do assign to the trial judge the task of
ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at
hand.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). The trial court’s
“gatekeeping” task with respect to expert testimony applies not just to scientific evidence, as was
at issue in Daubert, but to all types of specialized knowledge presented through an expert witness.
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 148-49 (1999). “”[T]he relevant reliability
concern may focus upon personal knowledge or experience . . . [as] there are many different kinds
of experts, and many different kinds of expertise.” Id. at 150. The Court must analyze separately
the proposed expert’s qualification, reliability and helpfulness.
The Federal Circuit “appl[ies] regional circuit law to evidentiary issues.” VirnetX, Inc. v.
Cisco Sys., Inc.., 767 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Whether proffered evidence should be
admitted in a trial is a procedural issue not unique to patent law, and therefore we review the district
court’s decision whether to admit expert testimony under the law of the regional circuit, here the
Fifth Circuit.” Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, 317 F.3d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed Cir. 2003). The Sixth
Circuit has noted that absolute certainty is not required of an expert but that sheer speculation,
regardless of the qualifications of the speculator, lacks sufficient reliability:
Rule 702, we recognize, does not require anything approaching absolute certainty.
See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786. And where one person sees
speculation, we acknowledge, another may see knowledge, which is why the district
court enjoys broad discretion over where to draw the line.
Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 671-72 (6th Cir. 2010).
To determine the testimony’s reliability, the court does not “determine whether [the opinion]
is correct, but rather [determines] whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say,
unsupported speculation.” In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 529–30 (6th Cir. 2008).
“As gatekeeper, the trial court only determines the admissibility of expert evidence; the jury
determines its weight. The court’s focus is ‘solely on principles and methodology, not on the
conclusions that they generate.’” United States v. Stafford, 721 F.3d 380, 393-94 (6th Cir. 2013)
(quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595) (alterations in original). “[R]ejection of expert testimony is the
exception, rather than the rule.” In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 530.
Garmin asserts that if the Court determines that Mr. Smith’s opinions and testimony are
inadmissible under Daubert, the Court must exclude the testimony and results of Dr. Steckel’s
conjoint study, which have no relevance other than their utilization by Mr. Smith. Visteon concedes
this point in its post-Daubert hearing brief when it states that “Mr. Smith’s Lane Guidance and Turn
Preview analysis, Total Available Margin analysis, and MITAC analysis do not rely on Dr. Steckel’s
conjoint study and are thus unaffected by Garmin’s MIL No. 1 directed to Dr. Steckel’s conjoint
study.”9 ECF No. 386, Visteon’s Post-Daubert Br. 5 n. 3. Because the Court concludes, for the
reasons discussed below, that Mr. Smith’s opinion and testimony setting forth his second damage
methodology that relies on the results of Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study is inadmissible, the Court will
exclude Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study and testimony completely for a lack of relevance to the facts
of the case based on Visteon’s concession that Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study is unrelated to his other
The Apportionment Requirement
In a line of cases as far back as 2009, the Federal Circuit has continued to reinforce the
requirement that infringement damages must be apportioned in relation to the patented features
alone, separate and apart from any value attributable to any unpatented features. See Lucent Techs.,
Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“‘if plaintiff’s patent only created part
of the profits, he is only entitled to recover that part of the net gains’”) (quoting Westinghouse Elec.
& Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Elec. & Mfg. Co., 225 U.S. 604, 614-15 (1912)); LaserDynamics, Inc. v.
Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67-68 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[I]n any case involving
multi-component products, patentees may not calculate damages based on sales of the entire product,
With regard to his “third methodology,” the “Target Margin” approach, Mr. Smith testified that
the proportional values set forth on Exhibit 1 of his original report, allocating 10% of the feature
value to hardware, 55% to mapping software and other licenses, and the remaining 35% to the four
features in suit was “arbitrarily” decided. Ex. D, Smith 11/13/12 Dep. 165. As Mr. Smith admitted
in his deposition, his “apportionment” of 35% of the value of the PNDs to the four asserted patented
features was completely arbitrary and lacked evidentiary support. ECF No. 268, Ex. D, Smith
11/13/12 Dep. 165-67. In fact, in his deposition, Mr. Smith testified that he decided not to rely on
this “third methodology,” which “simply by happenstance” yielded an $85 million damage figure
similar to the Steckel part worth damage figure of $85 million, specifically because he “didn’t have
data or evidence to rely on for [his] 35% number.” Id. at 166-67. Thus, as Mr. Smith himself
acknowledged, this damages method lacks sufficient scientific reliability and will be excluded along
with Mr. Smith’s second damage methodology that relies on the Steckel conjoint study.
as opposed to the smallest salable patent-practicing unit, without showing that the demand for the
entire product is attributable to the patented feature.”). The patentee must, in every such case, “give
evidence tending to separate or apportion the infringer’s profits and the patentee’s damages between
the patented feature and the unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible,
and not conjectural or speculative.” Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “When the accused infringing products have both patented and
unpatented features, measuring this value requires a determination of the value added by such
features. . . . [A] jury must ultimately ‘apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee's damages
between the patented feature and the unpatented features’ using ‘reliable and tangible’ evidence.”
Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Garretson, 111
U.S. at 121) (alteration added). “No matter the form of the royalty, a patentee must take care to
seek only those damages attributable to the infringing features. Indeed . . . a patentee ‘must in every
case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s
damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features, and such evidence must be
reliable and tangible.’”) VirnetX, 767 F.3d at 1326 (quoting Garretson, 111 U.S. at 121). “[W]hen
claims are drawn to an individual component of a multi-component product, it is the exception, not
the rule, that damages may be based upon the value of the multi-component product.” Id. (citing
LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 67-68). The exception that does not require such disaggregation, i.e.
the circumstance in which it is appropriate to calculate damages based on the entire market value
of the accused product, requires evidence that “the patented feature creates the basis for customer
demand or substantially creates the value of the component parts.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). There is no claim that the entire market value rule (“EMVR”) applies here
and Visteon is thus required disaggregate the patented from the unpatented features and “to
apportion value between the patented features and the vast number of non-patented features
contained in the accused product.” Id. at 1329.
Neither Dr. Steckel Nor Mr. Smith Has Employed a Methodology That Properly
Apportions Damages to the Patented Features
Mr. Smith confirmed in his deposition his understanding that Dr. Steckel calculated the
consumer value only of the accused features and did not undertake to determine the value of all
features of the accused devices, including a multitude of features not being challenged in this case:
Q: Did Dr. Steckel calculate the total consumer value of all features of personal
A: I believe he only talked about the patented features in his calculations; and again,
in paragraph 69, that is indicated directly.
Q: Okay. So is that correct then, Dr. Steckel did not calculate the total consumer
value of all features, including non patented features of personal navigation devices?
A: To my knowledge, he didn’t and certainly his report doesn’t say that.
Q: [B]ut Dr. Steckel did not determine a parts-worths (sic) value for all of the nonpatented features and functionalities in the PNDS?
A: That was not the objective of his study, so I’m fairly certain he didn’t.
Smith Dep. 65:9-25, 167:8-12. While Mr. Smith may have “picked up where Dr. Steckel left off,”
as Visteon represented he would do, he too failed to properly demonstrate apportionment.
Mr. Smith’s original Report states that “the entire market rule does not apply in this case,”
and therefore he is not using Garmin’s sales revenue as “an appropriate royalty base for purposes
of the damages calculation.” ECF No. 268, Ex. M, Original Smith Report at 29.
Smith states, he “believes that some measure of the available margin to pay royalties should be
used.” Id. Mr. Smith “decided to use reported gross margin after accounting for current royalty
payments to existing licensors for Garmin PND features as the initial basis for calculation.” Id.
Testifying at the Daubert hearing, as set forth supra, Mr. Smith admitted that he did not
determine the price that consumers would pay for the infringing features and did not find the portion
of Garmin’s revenue from selling the accused devices that was attributable to the patented features.
Daubert Tr. 70:17-71:11. Mr. Smith explained that his effort to quantify the portion of Garmin’s
revenue that was attributable to the infringing features can be seen in his calculations set forth on
Exhibit 4 of his Second Supplemental Report, discussed in detail supra, in which he demonstrates
that Garmin would pay no more for the patented features than their target margin would allow.
Whatever the economic or mathematical soundness of Mr. Smith’s calculation, it fails to
demonstrate apportionment as required under Federal Circuit law. Mr. Smith’s work assumes that
Visteon would be entitled to the full additional marginal royalty amount ($4.73/unit) that Garmin
would be willing to pay while still maintaining its sales price and margins. His original calculation
(at least as originally set forth on Exhibit 19 and depicted on Exhibit 4) was premised on the Steckel
economic utility values which, despite Visteon’s assertion otherwise, Mr. Smith does effectively
treat as the starting price to which he applies a “desired margin” calculated with reference to
Garmin’s actual margins and from which he derives his Royalty Per Unit figure.
Mr. Smith makes no attempt to quantify the value of the four patented features, which are
but a few of the numerous features that drive consumer demand for the accused devices, relative to
those other features. At the Daubert hearing, the Court asked Mr. Smith whether his work assumed
that one hundred percent of the value of the accused devices’s features was attributable to the four
accused patented features, Mr. Smith replied:
A: No I did not assume that.
Q: What did you factor in?
A: I assumed that there was value provided by the patents for sure. I assumed that
because of the Study that was done by Dr. Steckel which showed that there was
utility value of some size. I also know from study at least until 2014, that none of
the features embodied in the patents were substituted for by Garmin. They kept all
of those functionalities and did not design – even though they claimed they could –
did not design a noninfringing substitute. So I have to judge from that that Garmin
believed those patents had substantial value, but not all of the value.
Daubert Tr. 58:24-59:12. “The Federal Circuit is clear that a patentee’s evidence ‘to separate or
apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the
unpatented features . . . must be reliable and tangible, . . . not conjectural or speculative.’”
GoDaddy.com LLC v. Rpost Commun. Ltd., No 14-00126, 2016 WL 2643003, at *6 (D. Ariz. May
10, 2016) (quoting LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 67-68 (citing Garretson, 111 U.S. at 121) (ellipsis
in orignal). “[Q]ualitative testimony that an invention is valuable – without being anchored to a
quantitative market valuation – is insufficiently reliable.” Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 809 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mr. Smith’s
conclusion, drawn from Dr. Steckel’s study that admittedly failed to apportion value, that “there was
utility value of some size” is exactly the type of speculative opinion, completely untethered from
any quantitative market evidence, that fails to meet Daubert standards in this context.
Mr. Smith admits that he did not determine the actual value of the four patented features and
did not compare the value of patented features to the value of the numerous non-accused features.
His work contains no discussion whatsoever of the value of the many non-patented features of the
accused devices that are not subject to Visteon claims and as to which Visteon has no right to royalty
damages. Indeed it appears irrelevant to Mr. Smith’s “different calculation” explained at the
Daubert hearing whether there were four or ten patents accused – the marginal royalty that Garmin
would allegedly be prepared to pay would be the same – divvied up differently but the same.
Working from Garmin’s actual costs and margins on its entire accused devices at the time of the
hypothetical negotiation, Mr. Smith calculated a target margin that Visteon would seek to maintain
and derived from that a residual amount that Garmin would have been willing to pay in 2009 in
additional royalties. Mr. Smith then assumes, with no discussion of the value of these particular
patented features or the numerous other valuable features of the accused devices and no attempt to
quantify the increased profit that Garmin could have expected to earn from the technology
represented by these specific four features, that Garmin would have paid this entire residual amount
of profit margin to obtain a license to include these four features in its PNDs. Mr. Smith explained
this step of his methodology at the Daubert hearing:
[T]he approach I took called Target Margin and modified in some respects, but the
approach I took was intended to show that A., Garmin would pay as little as possible
for that which has been my experience every patent negotiation I’ve ever been
involved in – as little as possible. . . . So I did calculate this by saying that based
upon their existing price at that – this notion $162-plus and based upon their gross
margin because I’m not really sure what margin meant in those data, but based upon
that margin which is 64%, Garmin would not pay more for the functionality in the
patents than would be required to maintain their margins and maintain their price.
ECF No. 386, Daubert Tr. 70:17-71:11.
Mr. Smith testified that Dr. Steckel’s Utility Values “become the basis for apportioning the
individual royalties to the individual patents. They are the apportionment mechanism created by the
Conjoint Analysis.” Daubert Tr. 56:24-57:13. This is not the “apportionment” required by Federal
Circuit law. The fact that Mr. Smith at some point “divvies up” the $4.73 according to the
proportions determined by Dr. Steckel’s Utility Values, which we have already established failed
to apportion value, does nothing to alter the fundamental failing to “link demand for the accused
device to the patented features, and  to apportion value between the patented features and the vast
number of non-patented features contained in the accused products.” VirnetX, 767 F.3d at 1329.
“Beginning from a fundamentally flawed premise and adjusting it based on legitimate considerations
specific to the facts of the case nevertheless results in a fundamentally flawed conclusion.” Uniloc
USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Without an understanding of how valuable the four patented features are to demand for the
accused devices, i.e. without a calculation of the patented features’ “footprint in the marketplace,”
VirnetX, 767 F.3d at 1326 (quotation marks omitted), it is impossible for a jury to determine the
profit that could actually be attributed to Garmin’s use of the patented features. See GoDaddy.com,
2016 WL 2643003, at *6 (excluding expert testimony that relied on “‘vague qualitative notions of
the relative importance’ of the patented technology to assert that 10% of the accused products profits
should be apportioned to the patented technology”) (quoting LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 69); Open
Text, S.A. v. Box Inc., No. 13-04910, 2015 WL 349197, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) (excluding
expert testimony for failure to “apportion down to the usage and importance of the accused features
themselves”); Intelligent Verification Sys., LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-525, 2015 WL 1518099,
at *6-7 (E.D. Va. March 31, 2015) (excluding expert’s testimony under the mandate of VirnetX for
failure to apportion beyond comparing cost of hardware components necessary to practice the
patented features to the total cost of the accused product, concluding that expert failed to identify
the value of the individual patented feature).
“The essential requirement is that the ultimate reasonable royalty award must be based on
the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the end product.” Ericsson, 773 F.3d at
1226. In this case, neither Dr. Steckel nor Mr. Smith has provided a basis for the jury to determine
the incremental value that these four patented features added to the accused products. Mr. Smith’s
work gives no evidence of how Garmin’s profits would have increased at the time of the
hypothetical negotiation from incorporating the patented features and therefore gives no evidence
on which a jury could determine how much Garmin would actually have been willing to pay to
obtain the functionality of these four features.
In its post-Daubert hearing briefing, Visteon only twice in passing mentions the
apportionment issue, notwithstanding the fact that apportionment was extensively addressed with
Mr. Smith by Garmin’s counsel at the Daubert hearing. First, Visteon suggests that Mr. Smith’s
Georgia-Pacific analysis “fully considered, inter alia, the relative positions of the parties and the
value of the patented features to both consumers and Garmin. As such, this approach appropriately
and reliably apportioned the value attributable to the patented features.” ECF No. 376, Visteon’s
Supp. Br. 7. “While factors 9 and 13 of the Georgia–Pacific factors allude to apportionment
concepts,” Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1228 n. 5, “[i]t is not enough to merely show that the [patented
feature] is viewed as valuable, important, or even essential” to use of the device in which it is
incorporated. LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 68. Mr. Smith’s analysis of Georgia-Pacific factors 9
and 13 falls far short of the apportionment required by the Federal Circuit. Analyzing factor 9, Mr.
Smith states in full:
The deployment and use of the asserted patents in the accused products has become
ubiquitous in the PND market, demonstrating that the functionality provided is
extremely valuable. The fact that none of the major competitors has successfully
attempted or introduced workaround is an indication that it would be difficult to
provide the same functionality, in spite of the fact that the patents-in-suit clearly
provide a valuable functionality that is now a design standard in the industry.
ECF No. 268, Ex. M, Original Smith Report 64. Opining in a conclusory fashion that the features
are “extremely valuable” and have “become ubiquitous” says nothing substantive about their value
and/or about their value vis-a-vis the many other “extremely valuable” features and certainly does
not establish their “incremental value” for purposes of apportioning damages.
Georgia-Pacific factor 13, which examines “the portion of realizable profit that should be
credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process,
business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer is actually nonexistent,” is likely the most pertinent factor for assessing the issue of apportionment. Although Mr.
Smith assigns factor 13 a score of 3, he provides no analysis whatsoever for that conclusion.
Original Smith Report at 64. Thus, while it is possible that in certain instances a thorough factbased analysis of these Georgia-Pacific factors could tend to support an apportionment analysis, Mr.
Smith’s analysis of those factors in this case does not approach “the substantive statutory
requirement of apportionment of royalty damages to the invention’s value.” Ericsson, 773 F.3d at
1226. Mr. Smith’s Georgia-Pacific analysis, contrary to Visteon’s claim otherwise, did not
“appropriately and reliably apportion the value attributable to the patented features.” ECF No.
386, Visteon’s Supp. Br. 7.
Visteon’s second passing reference to the apportionment issue fares no better. Visteon states
that “contrary to Garmin’s allegations, the per device royalty calculation did not assume that a
hundred percent of the value of the PND’s features were attributable to the four accused features.”
Visteon’s Supp. Br. 8. In support of this statement, Visteon cites Mr. Smith’s response to the
Court’s questioning cited supra, that was directed to this issue. As discussed supra, Mr. Smith’s
explanation to the Court as to how he determined what portion of the value of the PND’s features
was attributable to the four patented features falls far short of the apportionment analysis required
by Federal Circuit law, i.e. he simply “assumed there was value provided by the patents for sure”
based on Dr. Steckel’s study and concluded that because Garmin kept the features in their devices
“Garmin believed those patents had substantial value, but not all of the value” of the accused
devices. Daubert Tr. 58:24-59:12. This was the entirety of his analysis directed to apportioning the
value of the patented features relative to the value of the numerous other features of Garmin’s PNDs.
“Such conclusory assertions cannot form the basis of a jury’s verdict.” VirnetX, 767 F.3d at 1333.
Visteon then goes on in its post-hearing brief to confusingly refer to Mr. Smith’s “dividing
up” his royalty margin among the four patents in suit according to Dr. Steckel’s Utility Values as
“relative apportionment” or “the proportional distribution of the per device royalty to the asserted
patents.” Visteon’s Supp. Br. 9 (emphasizing that “the Utility Values were only used for relative
apportionment”) (emphasis in original). As discussed supra, this is not the “apportionment”
required under Federal Circuit precedent and Visteon’s use of the term in this context is unfortunate
at best and misleading at worst.
In the end, the patentee “must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion
the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented
features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative; or he
must show, by equally reliable and satisfactory evidence, that the profits and damages are to be
calculated on the whole machine, for the reason that the entire value of the whole machine, as a
marketable article, is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.” Garretson, 111 U.S.
at 121 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The EMVR does not apply here and Mr.
Smith failed to provide reliable and tangible evidence that would permit a jury to determine what
portion of Garmin’s profits could be attributed to the incremental value that the four patented
features added to the overall value of the accused devices. Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1229. It was
Visteon’s burden to demonstrate this critical aspect of their damage calculation in a solid, factuallysupported, understandable way.
Although Garmin vigorously attacked Mr. Smith on this
fundamental flaw in both its briefing and at the Daubert hearing, Visteon has not offered a cogent
explanation of how Mr. Smith separated the value of the numerous valuable non-patented features
from that of the four patented features asserted in this case. “In calculating the royalty base, [Mr.
Smith] did not even try to link demand for the accused device to the patented feature, and failed to
apportion value between the patented features and the vast number of non-patented features
contained in the accused products. Because [Mr. Smith] did not ‘carefully tie proof of damages to
the claimed invention's footprint in the market place,’ Uniloc, 632 F.3d at 1317 (quoting ResQNet,
594 F.3d at 869), his testimony on the royalty base under this approach [is] inadmissible and [is]
excluded.” Virnet X, 767 F.3d 1329 (alterations added). “While questions regarding which facts
are most relevant for calculating a reasonable royalty are properly left to the jury, a critical
prerequisite is that the underlying methodology be sound.” Id. at 1328. Mr. Smith’s failure to
apportion is a failure of sound methodology and his opinion setting forth a damage model based
upon the Steckel Economic Values (Mr. Smith’s preferred “second method”) will be excluded.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Garmin’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Joel
Steckel’s Conjoint Survey and Conclusions Derived Therefrom (ECF No. 269) and GRANTS
Garmin’s Motion to Exclude Peter Smith’s Reasonable Royalty Calculations and Opinions
Regarding Damages (ECF No. 260). The Court also GRANTS Garmin’s Motion to Strike Dr.
Steckel’s Declaration (ECF No. 318), Garmin’s Motion to Strike Portions of Peter Smith’s Expert
Report (ECF No. 342), and Visteon’s Daubert Motion to Exclude John Lavrakas From Offering any
Testimony Rebutting Survey Evidence (ECF No. 255).10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 14, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party
of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on October 14, 2016.
Each of these motions, (ECF Nos. 318, 342 and 255) is GRANTED in light of the Court’s
exclusion of Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study and expert opinion and the exclusion of Mr. Smith’s expert
opinion and testimony that relies on the results of Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study. In ECF No. 318,
Garmin moves to strike Dr. Steckel’s Declaration in which he attempts to opine on the propriety of
Mr. Smith’s analysis. In ECF No. 342, portions of which the Court resolved in a separate Opinion
and Order entered on May 23, 2016, Garmin seeks to exclude Mr. Smith’s supplemental opinions,
also based in part on Dr. Steckel’s conjoint analysis, regarding the value of claims 4 and 5 of the
‘408 patent in light of the cancellation of claim 1 of the ‘408 patent. In ECF No. 255, Visteon seeks
to exclude expert testimony of Garmin’s expert John Lavrakas opining as to the validity of the
design of Dr. Steckel’s conjoint study.
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?