Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

June 6, 2017

WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC., Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge.

         In this opinion and order, the court addresses a slew of post-trial motions. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) and awarded damages in the amount of $234 million. Invoking Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(3), defendant Apple, Inc., challenges virtually every aspect of the jury's verdicts, and myriad decisions made both before and during the trial by the court. (Dkt. #677.) For the reasons that follow, the court will deny that motion in its entirety. WARF also moves under Rule 59(e) to alter the court's grant of judgment in Apple's favor on plaintiff's willful infringement claim. Applying the new standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923 (2016), the court again concludes that WARF has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating willful infringement. Accordingly, that motion will also be denied.

         The remaining motions are all WARF's: for equitable relief (dkt. #683); for an accounting, supplemental damages through the date of judgment, and pre- and post-judgment interest (dkt. #685); and for taxation of costs (dkt. ##689, 725). For the reasons that follow, the court will award an ongoing royalty rate of $2.74 per unit from the date of judgment, October 25, 2015. The court will also award supplemental damages at the per unit royalty rate awarded by the jury from June 27, 2015, to October 25, 2015.[1] The court will also award pre-judgment interest at the prime rate, compounded quarterly, and will award post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, compounded annually. The calculations for supplemental damages and pre-judgment interest will await further submissions by the parties. Finally, the court will award WARF costs in the total amount of $841, 587.66.

         BACKGROUND

         In this patent lawsuit, WARF alleged that Apple infringed U.S. Patent No. 5, 781, 752 (the “'752 patent”). In response, Apple asserted various counterclaims, which challenge the validity of the patent. On the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the court granted partial judgment to WARF on: (1) Apple's counterclaims and defenses for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5, 619, 662 (“Steely or the “Steely patent”); and (2) Apple's counterclaim and defense for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 with respect to claims 5 and 6 of the ‘752 patent. (8/6/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #193).)

         The case then proceeded to a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of WARF, finding that Apple infringed all six of the asserted claims and rejecting Apple's invalidity defense as to each of those six claims. (10/13/15 Liability Special Verdict (dkt. #603).) In the second phase of the trial, the jury answered two more questions in favor of WARF, finding Apple vicariously liable for Samsung's manufacture of Apple products, and awarded WARF $234, 277, 669.00 in damages. (10/19/15 Damages Special Verdict (dkt. #642).)

         During the course of trial, the court also granted WARF judgment as a matter of law on one of Apple's noninfringement defenses based on the claim of a “prediction threshold detector preventing data speculation for instructions having a prediction within a predetermined range, ” finding that Apple had failed to put forth a factual basis for that defense to support a reasonable jury finding noninfringement on that basis. (10/16/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #639).) Finally, the court granted judgment in favor of Apple on WARF's willful infringement claim. (10/15/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #623).)

         OPINION

         I. Apple's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and/or New Trial (dkt. #677)

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, judgment as a matter of law may be granted where there is no “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to find for the party on that issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). In considering a Rule 50(a) motion, the court is to “construe the facts strictly in favor of the party that prevailed at trial.” including drawing “[a]ll reasonable inferences in that party's favor and disregarding all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” May v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 692 F.3d 734, 742 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), withdrawn in part on reh'g, Nos. 11-3000, 11-3109, 2013 WL 1955682 (7th Cir. May 14, 2013). In particular, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, although the court must assure that “more than ‘a mere scintilla of evidence' supports the verdict.” Id. (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assocs. of Joliet, Inc., 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007)). Essentially, the court's “job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of the evidence supports the jury's verdict or if, instead, the jury was irrational to reach its conclusion.” May, 692 F.3d at 742.

         A further limitation applies as well: “Because the Rule 50(b) motion is only a renewal of the preverdict motion, it can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict motion.” Wallace v. McGlothan, 606 F.3d 410, 418 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Thompson v. Mem'l Hosp. of Carbondale, 625 F.3d 394, 407 (7th Cir. 2010) (refusing to consider the defendant's argument that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he suffered an adverse employment action, in part, because the defendant did not raise argument in Rule 50(a) motion); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 cmt. 1991 Amendments (“A post-trial motion for judgment can be granted only on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion.”).

         Defendant also moves for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. “A new trial may be granted only if the jury's verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” King v. Harrington, 447 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing ABM Marking, Inc. v. Zanasi Fratelli, S.R.L., 353 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir. 2003)). To meet this standard, defendant must demonstrate that no rational jury could have rendered a verdict against Apple. King, 447 F.3d at 534 (citing Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 926 (7th Cir. 2004)). In making this evaluation, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, leaving issues of credibility and weight of evidence to the jury. King, 447 F.3d at 534. “The court must sustain the verdict where a ‘reasonable basis' exists in the record to support the outcome.” Id. (quoting Kapelanski v. Johnson, 390 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2004)).

         In this case, the evidence easily supports the jury's findings of infringement on all three disputed elements of the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit: (1) “detecting a mis-speculation”; (2) “the particular data consuming instruction”; and (3) “flag value.” (Def.'s Mot. (dkt. #555) 4-9.) While Apple's Rule 50(b) motion extends beyond the arguments raised in its 50(a) motion, WARF does not oppose it on that basis. As such, the court will address that motion, briefly, while ultimately rejecting all of the arguments raised by Apple.

         A. Infringement

         In its pending Rule 50(b) motion, Apple contends the accused products lack at least three elements required by the ‘752 patent, and, therefore, no reasonable jury could find that Apple literally infringed any of the asserted claims of the ‘752 patent. First, Apple contends that no reasonable jury could have found that Apple's accused products satisfy the “detecting a mis-speculation” and “mis-speculation indication” elements. Apple argues that the accused products detect only data dependence, not mis-speculations, but WARF submitted evidence -- largely through its expert Professor Conte -- showing Apple's data speculation circuit, the Load-Store Unit, is capable of both detecting data dependence and detecting mis-speculation.

         Specifically, Conte testified that the Load Queue in the Load-Store Unit detects a mis-speculation between a Load and a Store by comparing the program order of the older Store and younger Load, confirming that the instructions have an address overlap, and ensuring that the younger Load has in fact executed before the older Store. (See Pl.'s Opp'n (dkt. #711) 21 (citing Conte testimony).) When a mis-speculation is detected, the Load Store Unit then produces a Store-Hit-Younger-Load Redirect, which is a mis-speculation indication. (See id.) Conte further testified that, and provided an illustration for the jury to better understand how, the timing of Apple's processor necessarily satisfies the “detecting a mis-speculation” and “mis-speculation indication” elements. (Id. at 31-32.) In other words, this step is “baked into” Apple's processor. (Id. at 31.)

         In its reply, Apple argues principally that “a processor cannot literally detect or indicate a mis-speculation absent an explicit check.” (Def.'s Reply (dkt. #728) 15 (emphasis added).) Whatever Apple means by “explicit, ” the construction of “mis-speculation” agreed on by the parties contains no such requirement. (See 8/6/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #193) 10.) Instead, true to the language of the claim, all that is required is that (1) mis-speculations occur and (2) Apple's processor is capable of detecting and indicating such occurrences. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of WARF, therefore, the jury's finding of infringement of this element was certainly not irrational. May, 692 F.3d at 742.

         Second, Apple challenges the jury's finding that the “particular data consuming instruction” element is satisfied. Specifically, Apple argues that the evidence demonstrates that “each entry of Apple's LSD Predictor includes a Load Tag and counter, ” and that the Load Tags are generated using a hashtag function and are not associated with a “particular” load instruction. (Def.'s Opening Br. (dkt. #678) 17-18.) The court rejects Apple's challenge for the same reason it denied Apple's Rule 50(a) motion, “a reasonable jury could conclude that a prediction was associated with a particular load []instruction even if that same prediction may be associated with other load instructions.” (10/26/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #655) 4-5.) In its reply brief, Apple appears to step back from any defense based on aliasing and the frequency of aliasing. Even if this shift does not amount to waiver, the court agrees with WARF that the Apple's processors are capable of operating for periods of time during which at least some of the load tags will not alias. As such, the jury reasonably rejected any non-infringement defense based on that theory. (See Pl.'s Opp'n (dkt. #711) 44 (citing Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A]n accused device that sometimes, but not always embodies a claim[] nonetheless infringes.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).) For these reasons, the court concludes that the jury reasonably found this element satisfied.

         Related to its Rule 50(b) challenge, Apple also seeks a new trial based on the court's failure to instruct the jury on the meaning of “the particular.” During trial, WARF moved to exclude evidence and argument on Apple's aliasing non-infringement theory, on the basis that this theory was one of claims construction, and Apple waived any construction of the term “the particular” by failing to raise it timely. In response, it was Apple who argued that the term “the particular” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of “of, relating to, or being a single person or thing, ” no doubt at least in part to avoid a waiver for failing to seek a timely construction. (Def.'s Br. (dkt. #552) 3.) Regardless, the court agreed with Apple's interpretation, concluding that claim 1 “disclosed a prediction associated with a single load instruction, ” but given that this interpretation was consistent with the plain meaning of the claim terms “the” and “the particular” declined to insert a specific, untimely construction in the closing instructions. (10/8/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #559); 10/9/15 Text Order (dkt. #575).) Moreover, in the closing instructions, the jury was told that “[a]ll other claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art or field of the invention.” (Closing Liability Instructions (dkt. #646) 5.) Finally, Apple has failed to explain adequately how it was prejudiced by the denial of its request, or why a new trial is required under Rule 59(a).

         Third, Apple challenges the jury's finding that Apple's accused products satisfy the “flag value indicating whether the certain respective date producing [store] instruction has been executed” in claims 5 and 6. Apple argues that the Armed Bit in the LSD Predictor only indicates “whether the store instruction is in the Reservation Station, not whether it ‘has been executed'” as would be required to have a “flag value” under those claims. (Def.'s Opening Br. (dkt. #678) 22.) As WARF explains, largely through Dr. Conte's review of RTL code, however, the change from 0 to 1 indicates that the Store instruction is in the reservation and not yet executed, and then the change from 1 to 0, further indicates that the stores are “data resolved, ” issued from the Reservation Station, and thus have been executed. (Pl.'s Opp'n (dkt. #711) 48-49.) In response, Apple simply argues that WARF's explanation does not account for the Armed Bit value being “0” both before and after execution. (Def.'s Reply (dkt. #728) 25-26.) Apple's argument, however, fails to consider the passage of time and Conte's testimony that the value changed from 0 to 1 and then the de-assertion from 1 to 0. Since the jury reasonably credited Conte's testimony, the court sees no basis for upsetting that finding.

         In addition to raising challenges under Rule 50(b), Apple also argues that a new trial on infringement is necessary because the court erred during the liability phase of trial, granting WARF judgment as a matter of law on one of Apple's non-infringement theories -- namely, Apple's defense with respect to the “prediction threshold detector” limitation. (Def.'s Opening Br. (dkt. #678) 29.) Certainly, the court granted judgment as a matter of law on this noninfringement theory in response to WARF's oral motion. The court subsequently issued an opinion and order more fully explaining its reasons for doing so. (10/16/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #639).) Since Apple's Rule 59 motion raises no new bases for reviewing that decision, the court simply rejects Apple's arguments for the reasons already stated on the record during the trial and in its subsequent written order.

         Finally, in a one-paragraph throw-away challenge, Apple purports to seek a new trial on the basis that the jury's infringement verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court rejects this motion for the same reasons the court rejected Apple's challenges under Rule 50(b).

         B. Invalidity

         Apple also seeks judgment as a matter of law as to its defenses and counterclaims of invalidity with respect to two other arguments: (1) claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the ‘752 patent were obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5, 666, 506 (“Hesson”) and U.S. Patent No. 5, 619, 662 (“Steely”); and (2) claims 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the ‘752 patent are anticipated by, or at least obvious in view of, the Chen prior art references.

         “A party seeking to invalidate a patent based on obviousness must demonstrate ‘by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.'” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Again, in the context of a post-verdict motion, the court is directed to “presume that the jury resolved the underlying factual disputes in favor of the verdict winner and [to] leave those presumed findings undisturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence.” Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The court then “examine[s] the legal conclusion de novo to see whether it is correct in light of the presumed jury fact findings.” Id. In conducting this analysis, courts are instructed to “consider all of the Graham factors prior to reaching a conclusion with respect to obviousness.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966) describing four underlying factors for deciding obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicia of nonobviousness).

         As for the first defense, based on the Hesson and Steely patents, the court considered this theory in its opinion and order granting Apple judgment on WARF's willful infringement claim. (10/15/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #623) 3-4.) While the court found Apple's defense reasonable, the court also determined that the jury acted reasonably in rejecting the defense, likely “because of the investment in computer software simulations, and time and effort required to confirm that the ‘752 patented invention would prove valuable in practice sometime in the future when processing speeds had increased by a factor of 10 or more.” (Id. at 4.) As WARF's expert, Dr. Mudge, and others explained, WARF put forth sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that one skilled in the art would not have combined Steely's memory reference tags with Hesson's solution to the problem of mis-speculations of store instructions. At the very least, Apple failed to prove this defense by clear and convincing evidence. Once again, therefore, the court sees no basis for upsetting the jury's factual findings as to Apple's obviousness defense by combining the Steely and Hesson patents.

         Apple also seeks a favorable judgment on its anticipation / obviousness defense based on the Chen references. Through the testimony of the co-author of three of the four Chen references -- Professor Scott Mahlke -- WARF put forth sufficient evidence from which the a reasonable jury could have found, and indeed did find that (1) the reordering contemplated in Chen is done in a software compiler not by a processor; and (2) the focus of Chen is on in order, rather than out of order, executions. (Pl.'s Opp'n (dkt. #711) 134-40.) Based on this, the jury reasonably concluded that Chen did not disclose claims 1, 2, 3 and 9 of the ‘752 patent, or, again, the jury at least had a sound basis for finding that Apple had not met its burden of demonstrating an anticipation defense by clear and convincing evidence.

         As for its related obviousness defense, Apple argued that it would have been an obvious to apply Chen to software. Putting aside WARF's challenges to Apple's anticipation defense, experts and others skilled in the art testified persuasively to the deep divide between hardware-based and software-based approaches. (Id. at 143-33.) A jury reasonably could have relied on this testimony to conclude that one skilled in the art would not have combined these fundamentally different approaches. As such, the court also rejects Apple's motion to invalidate certain claims of the ‘752 patent based on obvious in view of the Chen prior art references.

         C. Vicarious Liability

         Next, Apple seeks judgment as a matter of law or a new trial as to the jury's finding that: (1) the wafers infringe when they leave the United States; and (2) Samsung's manufacturing is attributable to Apple. These findings were material to the jury's determination of damages, specifically the appropriate royalty base. Post-trial, Apple raises three core challenges with respect to these jury findings.

         First, Apple argues that no reasonable jury could have found that the wafers were capable of infringing before they left the United States for further processing overseas. Specifically, Apples argues -- as it did unsuccessfully to the jury -- that the wafers “are not capable of performing the claimed functionality until ‘bumping' occurs to apply power in order for the circuitry to be able to function.” (Def.'s Opening Br. (dkt. #678) 51; see also Def.'s Reply (dkt. #728) (arguing that the wafers also must be “fused and singulated” before they can satisfy the claim limitations”).)

         This argument ignores the evidence presented largely through the testimony of Dr. Conte, that “the circuitry in Accused Processors are defined by their RTL code, that this circuitry contains each of the elements specific in the asserted claims, and all of the circuitry” in the wafers is in place before being shipped overseas. (Pl.'s Opp'n (dkt. #711) 149.) Moreover, Dr. Conte testified that the wafers can be powered on and tested on a test fixture after the wafer is manufactured in Austin, but before being shipped overseas. (Id. at 154.) This evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury to find that the wafers were capable of infringement and indeed did infringe, before leaving the United States.

         Second, Apple argues that no reasonable jury could find that Samsung's manufacturing was attributable to Apple. In so arguing, Apple contends that plaintiff must prove that Apple and Samsung have a principal-agent relationship. (Def.'s Opening Br. (dkt. #678) 55.) The court considered and previously rejected this argument as well, relying principally on the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In that case, the court explained that “Section 271(a) is not limited solely to principal-agent relationships, contractual arrangements, and joint enterprise[.]” Id. at 1023. Instead, the court held that vicarious liability for purposes of establishing direct infringement “can also be found when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.” Id.

         While recognizing that there may be important distinctions between apparatus and method claims, the court rejects Apple's attempt to distinguish Akamai on the basis that its holding is limited to method claims. See Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (similarly focusing on “control or direct” actions of another in determining whether there was vicarious liability for non method claim). As the court explained in its opinion and order on Apple's Rule 50(a) motion, “the Federal Circuit is certainly moving in the direction of a more expansive view of what satisfies control and direction in order to bring a third party's actions within the purview of the alleged infringer.” (10/26/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #655) 7.)[2]

         Finally, Apple argues that if the “control or direction” standard is correct, WARF still failed to demonstrate that it controlled and directed Samsung, because Samsung independently determined to manufacture the wafers in the United States as opposed to doing so in Korea. The court agrees with WARF that this argument conflates two separate questions -- whether Samsung's actions are attributable to Apple and whether infringement occurred within the United States. (Pl.'s Opp'n (dkt. #711) 187.) There is no merit to Apple's argument that it needed to direct Samsung to manufacture the wafers in the United States. As for Apple's other arguments that it did not control or direct Samsung's actions, as the court indicated in its opinion and order on Apple's Rule 50(a) motion, there was more than sufficient evidence in the form of two related manufacturing contracts for a reasonable jury to conclude that Apple did control or direct Samsung's actions.

         Third, Apple seeks a new trial on the basis that the court erred in allowing WARF to try its vicarious liability claim during the damages phase of trial. Apple contends that it was prejudiced by the decision. The argument is silly and warrants little attention. As Apple itself acknowledges, the court has wide discretion under Rule 42(b) to determine how best to try a case. Here, the first phase of the trial covered a lot of ground -- both infringement and invalidity. To have added WARF's vicarious liability claim would have unnecessarily complicated that first phase of trial since this issue was only material to the question of the scope of damages. If the jury had found no infringement or had found the patent invalid, there would have been no need for the evidence and argument on vicarious liability to be presented to the jury.[3]

         Nor is the court convinced by Apple's argument that the jury was confused by the vicarious liability questions given statements in the instructions that the jury had already found infringement. In particular, the instructions explained that the vicarious liability questions concerned processors manufactured in part in the United States and in part overseas. (Closing Damages Instructions (dkt. #649) 1 (“In determining whether to include these [wafers] in the damages award, you must first consider whether the products infringe at the time they leave the United States, before any additional manufacturing or processing occurs outside of the United States.”).) Accordingly, there appeared no risk of confusion. Indeed, the jury certainly was capable of understanding why it was being asked these questions in the second phase of the trial and how those answers impacted the damages award.

         D. Damages

         Apple finally raises a variety of challenges to the jury's damages award, which roughly fall into three buckets: (1) the admission of certain evidence and expert testimony; (2) errors in the instructions; and (3) the damages award was not supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. The court will address each challenge in turn.

         i. Evidentiary Rulings

         Apple challenges the introduction of evidence regarding patents that Apple asserted in litigation were infringed by Samsung and the royalties that Apple sought from Samsung. Specifically, Apple argues that those patents did not involve comparable technology, are reflective of the competitive relationship between Apple and Samsung, and were adopted in an unrelated litigation. The court already considered these arguments in ruling on motions in limine and finds no basis for reconsidering its decision to admit such evidence now. (9/29/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #468) 25-26.) For the most part, the evidence was used by WARF to rebut Apple's damages position. Moreover, Apple was not unduly prejudiced by the evidence as it was free to present testimony and argue -- and it did both -- that: these patents are not comparable; the negotiation between Apple and Samsung involved a competitive dynamic not at issue in this litigation; and the royalties were sought in the context of litigation. All of this simply goes to the weight the jury may assign to the patents and their royalties, not the admissibility.[4] See Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[W]hether these licenses are sufficiently comparable such that Motorola's calculation is a reasonable royalty goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”).

         Apple also challenges the admissibility of WARF's expert Catharine Lawton's testimony that the parties would have agreed to split the profits 50/50. Here, too, the court touched on this challenge at trial and sees no basis for revisiting its decision to allow her testimony. (9/29/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #468) 36-37.) Lawton testified that she isolated the patents attributable to the patented invention, and based on “conversations with [WARF's long-serving managing director] Dr. Gulbrandsen and WARF's history of licensing and negotiation and the nature of this technology, that WARF would have sought at this hypothetical negotiation 50 to 70 percent of the incremental additional profit that Apple realized.” (10/14/15 Trial Tr. (dkt. #671) 171-72.) The court found that Lawton sufficiently tied her 50% profit split to the facts of the case, and therefore her testimony is distinguishable from impermissible “rule of thumb” expert opinions. See Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., No. 09-290, 2012 WL 3679564, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2012) (distinguishing the holding in Uniloc from expert testimony “tied to the facts of the case”). Here, too, the jury was free to place little or no weight on this testimony, but Apple's challenge does not go to its admissibility.

         Also with respect to Lawton, Apple challenges the introduction of her testimony regarding an estimated market price of the A7 chip. The court addressed this challenge in its motions in limine order, and again sees no reason to revisit its decision allowing her testimony and introduction of evidence. (9/29/15 Op. & Order (dkt. #468) 35-36.) Whether Lawton's cost estimate was inflated was proper fodder for cross-examination --and Apple did explore this at trial -- but ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.