Atlas Glob. Techs. LLC v. TP-Link Techs. Co.

684 F.Supp.3d 570

ATLAS GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. TP-LINK TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,TP-Link Corporation Limited, TP-Link International LTD., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00430-JRG-RSP

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

Signed July 28, 2023

Alden Harris, Blaine Andrew Larson, Eric James Enger, William Brown Collier, Jr., Michael F. Heim, Heim, Payne and Chorush LLP, Houston, TX, Alejandra Christina Salinas, Joseph Samuel Grinstein, Max Lalon Tribble, Jr., Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX, Armstead Charlton Lewis, Rusty Hardin & Associates, LLP, Houston, TX, Alexander W. Aiken, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Andrea Leigh Fair, Claire Abernathy Henry, Johnny Ward, Jr., Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III, Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater, TX, Kalpana Srinivasan, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert Greenfeld, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Kristopher L. Reed, Cole Bass Ramey, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Dallas, TX, Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham, James Travis Underwood, Gillam & Smith LLP, Tyler, TX, Andrew Nathan Saul, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, Christopher P. Damitio, Pro Hac Vice, Kathleen Geyer, Pro Hac Vice, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Seattle, WA, Edward John Mayle, Kevin M. Bell, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Denver, CO, Melissa Richards Smith, Gillam & Smith, LLP, Marshall, TX, Steven David Moore, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

ROY S. PAYNE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is TP-Link Technologies Co., LTD. and TP-Link Corporation, LTD., f/k/a TP-Link International, LTD.'s (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Exclude Portions of Plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies LLC's Infringement Expert Opinions. Dkt. No. 196.¹ Atlas Global filed its Response (Dkt. No. 204), Defendants filed their Reply (Dkt. No. 217), and Atlas Global filed its Sur-reply (Dkt. No. 228). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART the motion to the extent that Dr. Shoemake (like any other expert) is precluded from testifying as to the knowledge or intent of the Defendants for indirect infringement.

I. BACKGROUND

Atlas Global alleges that Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,532,187 ("the '187 Patent"), 9,763,259 (the "'259 Patent"), 9,825,738 (the "'738 Patent"), 9,912,513 (the "'513 Patent"), 9,917,679 (the "'679 Patent") (collectively, the "Asserted Patents").² According to Atlas Global, the Asserted Patents cover various aspects of Wi-Fi 6, the current and most advanced version of Wi-Fi based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11ax standard. See Dkt. No. 88 at 6-7 ("The Asserted Patents enable numerous features of Wi-Fi 6, including OFDMA and MU-MIMO" (e.g., the '679), "multi-user triggering frames and/or acknowledgement frames" (e.g., the '738,-'513), "channel sounding, estimation, and feedback in multi-user communication" (e.g., the '259), "and interleaving in multi-user systems" (e.g., the '187)). Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that Atlas Global breached its contractual obligations (1) by failing to offer Defendants a license under fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms prior to filing suit and (2) by not disclosing the Asserted Patents to the IEEE. Answer, Dkt. No. 120 at ¶¶ 8-27 (Counterclaim Count 1: Breach of Contract).

Atlas Global's infringement expert, Dr. Matthew Shoemake, has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, has been involved in the development of IEEE 802.11 standards, and has experience in the design and operation of Wi-Fi technologies. Dr. Shoemake Infringement Report, Dkt. No. 204-4 at ¶¶ 16-33 (Section IV. Qualifications); see also Dr. Shoemake CV, Dkt. No. 228-2 at 2. Dr. Shoemake also has a bachelor's degree in computer science and 27 years of industry experience. Dr. Shoemake CV, Dkt. No. 228-2 at 2-3.

In his report, Dr. Shoemake opines that defendant TP-Link Corporation Limited directly infringes by (1) offering the Accused Products for sale in the United States and (2) by importing the Accused Products into the United States. See id., Dkt. No. 196-1 at ¶¶ 184-185.

Dr. Shoemake also opines that defendant TP-Link Corporation Limited indirectly infringes because it (1) has knowledge of the Asserted Patents and of the infringement, (2) induces purchasers and end-users to use the Accused Products in the United States in a manner that infringes the Asserted Patents, (3) induces TP-Link USA to sell and offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States to directly infringe, and (4) induces TP-Link USA to import the Accused Products into the United States to directly infringe. Id. at ¶¶ 186-218.

Further, in Dr. Shoemake's limitation-by-limitation infringement analysis of '520 Patent (e.g., limitation 1[A]-1[H]), he supplements his analysis with a statement for each limitation that states, "I incorporate all the evidence from [prior limitations] here." Id. at ¶ 275 (Analyzing limitation 1[B] and incorporating all evidence from limitation 1[A]), ¶ 278 (Analyzing limitation 1[C] and incorporating all evidence from limitations 1[A] and 1[B]), ¶ 281 (Analyzing limitation 1[D] and incorporating all evidence from limitations 1[A]-1[C]), ¶ 289 (Analyzing limitation 1[E] and incorporating all evidence from limitations 1[A]-1[D]), ¶ 291 (Analyzing limitation 1[F] and incorporating all evidence from limitations 1[A]-1[E]), ¶ 299 (Analyzing limitation 1[G] and incorporating all evidence from limitations 1[A]-1[F]), ¶ 302 (Analyzing limitation 1[H] and incorporating all evidence from limitations 1[A]-1[G]). He follows a similar process for each of the Asserted Patents and claims. See Motion, Dkt. No. 196 at 10 (chart showing each of the paragraphs in Dr. Shoemake's Infringement Report with similar language).

Defendants move to exclude Dr. Shoemake's opinions regarding (1) Defendants' alleged acts of direct infringement, (2) Defendants knowledge and intent for indirect infringement. Id. at 4-5. Defendants also move to strike portions of Dr. Shoemake's report that cross-reference other parts of his report by "incorporate[ing] all the evidence." Id. at 5. For each of the three topics, there are two issues for the Court to address.

First, do Dr. Shoemake's opinions satisfy the reliability and relevance requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)? Yes. Second, should the Court exclude certain of Dr. Shoemake's opinions under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2)(B), or Fed. R. Evid. Rules 703 and 704? Yes, to the extent those opinions answer the ultimate questions of Defendants' knowledge and intent. Otherwise, no.

II. LAW

"Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (emphasis added). Determining whether a product or method infringes a patent is a two-step process. Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (citations omitted), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996)). The Court must first determine the proper construction of the asserted claims, which is a matter of law. Id. (citing Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharm., 787 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). At the second step, the finder of fact must determine whether the asserted claim, as properly construed, "reads" on the product or method. Id. (citing Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).

Induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) "requires proof of underlying direct infringement, as well as proof that (1) 'the defendant knew of the patent,' (2) the defendant knew or should have known that 'the induced acts constitute patent infringement,' and (3) the defendant 'possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.' " Bio-Rad Lab'ys, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 998 F.3d 1320, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Sanofi, LLC v. Watson Labs. Inc., 875 F.3d 636, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).

"Contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) requires proof that (1) the defendant had 'knowledge of the patent in suit,' (2) the defendant had 'knowledge of patent infringement,' and (3) the accused product is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for a substantial noninfringing use." Id. (citing Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1926, 191 L.Ed.2d 883 (2015)).

Induced infringement pursuant to § 271(b) and contributory infringement pursuant to § 271(c) each require knowledge of infringement. See Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639, 135 S.Ct. 1920, 191 L.Ed.2d 883 (2015) (citing Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 488, 84 S.Ct. 1526, 12 L.Ed.2d 457 (1964)). The knowledge requirement includes both knowledge of the patents in suit, id., and knowledge of another's direct infringement resulting from the accused's conduct. See id. at 639-40, 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1926; see also Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 824 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., 365 F.3d 1054, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[K]nowledge of infringement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence." Warsaw, 824 F.3d at 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 769-71, 131 S.Ct. 2060, 179 L.Ed.2d 1167 (2011)).

Assessments as to infringement generally involves expert witnesses. An expert witness may provide opinion testimony if "(a) the expert's...