Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:21-CV-00316-JRG,2:21-CV-00317-JRG |
| Decision Date | 29 August 2023 |
| Parties | FINESSE WIRELESS LLC, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Before the Court is Defendants' Rule 59 Motion for New Trial (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 297.) In it, Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC (“AT&T”) and Intervenor-Defendant Nokia of America Corporation (“Nokia”) (collectively “Defendants”) move for a new trial. (See generally, id.) Plaintiff Finesse Wireless LLC (“Finesse”) opposes the Motion. (See Dkt. No. 309 at 1.) For the following reasons, the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED.
Finesse filed a complaint on August 23, 2021, alleging infringement by Defendants of U.S. Patent Number 7,346,134 and U.S. Patent Number 9,578,775 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (See generally, Dkt. No. 1.) Specifically, Finesse accused Defendants of using certain infringing cellular base stations. (See id.)
A jury trial was held on the Asserted Patents in January of 2023. On January 13, 2023, the jury returned a verdict finding that the Defendants infringed all asserted claims. (Dkt. No. 273 at 4.) Further, the jury found that Defendants had failed to prove that any of the asserted claims were invalid. (Id. at 5.) The jury awarded damages in the form of a lump sum for the remaining life of the patents in the amount of $166,303,391.00. (Id. at 6.)
Base stations include radios that send and receive signals. A signal that is sent by the radio station is called a downlink signal (e.g., the signal that is sent to a cell phone), and a received signal (e.g., a signal that is received by a cell phone) is called an uplink signal. Sometimes, signals interact with one another to create interference. The resulting interference is sometimes called passive intermodulation (“PIM”). The patents-in-suit describe methods and apparatuses for removing this type of interference. This is known as passive intermodulation cancellation or “PIMC”, or “PIM-C”.
At trial, Plaintiff and Defendants each presented a lump sum damages model. Defendants' model was largely based on the cost associated with manually fixing any PIM generated at a base station. Plaintiff's model, on the other hand, was based on the amount of spectrum salvaged by the technology at issue. Another word for spectrum is bandwidth, and cellular communication companies purchase spectrum wherein they can operate. Plaintiff's model is essentially based on the idea that the technology at issue allows AT&T to make better use of its own spectrum.
Rule 59 provides that a new trial may be granted on all or part of the issues on which there has been a trial by jury for “any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). Notwithstanding the broad sweep of Rule 59, “courts do not grant new trials unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or that substantial justice has not been done, and the burden of showing harmful error rests on the party seeking the new trial.” Metaswitch Networks Ltd. v. Genband U.S. LLC, 2017 WL 3704760, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2017); Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., 276 F.Supp.3d 629, 643 (E.D. Tex. 2017). “A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course.” Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 586 (5th Cir. 2003) (). Furthermore “[u]nless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence-or any other error by the court or a party-is ground for granting a new trial . . . the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 61.
Defendants argue that, for many of the same reasons put forward in their motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) regarding damages (Dkt. No. 296), the jury award of $166MM is against the great weight of the evidence. (Dkt. No. 297 at 4.) Defendants further argue that Dr. Bazelon should not have been permitted to offer a speculative damages theory based on future infringement. (Id. at 2.) Defendants also argue that Dr. Bazelon's opinions should have been excluded because he offered technical opinions he was not qualified to offer. (Id. at 3.)
Defendants also argue that the Court made several evidentiary rulings that improperly affected the scope of the damages case. (Id.) Defendants argue that the Court improperly excluded AT&T test data from Southern Ohio and New York City which showed that PIM was present at a limited number of sites, and that PIM-C had a modest effect on PIM. (Id.) Defendants also argue that the Court improperly excluded evidence demonstrating that Finesse licensed Verizon's use of the accused products in its network for no consideration. (Id.) Defendants further contend that the Court improperly excluded evidence showing that Ericsson entered into a covenant not to sue with respect to certain PIM-C products and this exclusion allowed the jury to reach a much higher damages verdict. (Id. ().) Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff improperly made repeated references to billions of dollars which prejudiced the Defendants, as discussed in their JMOL of damages. (Id. at 4 (citing Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).)
In response, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Bazelon's damages model was properly submitted to the jury. (Dkt. No. 309 at 4.) It was not speculative, according to Plaintiff, for Dr. Bazelon to calculate a lump sum using continued infringement at a steady rate, as Finesse's expert also opined on a lump sum model. (Id. at 4-5.) Moreover, Plaintiff argues, Defendants have waived this argument because it was not raised at the Daubert stage. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff further contends that the Court correctly denied Defendants' motion to strike Dr. Bazelon's opinions. (Id. at 5-6.)
Plaintiff also contends that the Court did not err in its evidentiary rulings (Id. at 6-10.) Plaintiff argues that the Court correctly excluded testing data produced well after discovery closed, despite Finesse having requested it earlier. (Dkt. No. 309 at 6-7.) Further, Plaintiff argues, Plaintiff's covenants not to sue with Verizon/Ericsson were made in light of the low level of sales of relevant products and were properly excluded. (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff argues that these are not licenses, they are covenants not to sue, and were properly excluded under FRE 403. (Dkt. No. 309 at 9.) Moreover, Plaintiff contends, Defendants' damages expert did not include the Ericsson covenant in the substantive analysis of his damages report, and did not attempt to supplement his report with the later-executed Verizon covenant. (Id.)
Plaintiff argues that Defendants have waived any objection to Finesse's reference to AT&T's purchases of spectrum because it comes from PX-518, an exhibit preadmitted without objection. (Id. at 10-11 ().) Plaintiff argues that Uniloc is distinguishable because the court there held that there was no waiver. (Id. at 11 (citing 632 F.3d at 1319)).) Plaintiff also incorporates its opposition to Defendant's JMOL regarding damages (Dkt. No. 310) by reference to show that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. (Dkt. No. 309 at 11.)
In reply, Defendants argue that Dr. Bazelon did not offer a proper lump sum theory and Finesse cannot compare Dr. Bazelon to Dr. Becker because Dr. Becker did not use a spectrum valuation theory. (Dkt. No. 316 at 1.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff's waiver arguments are inapt because Defendants believed that Finesse was going to offer a running royalty opinion up until voir dire, and Finesse stated as such in their joint pre-trial order. (Id. (citing Dkt. No. 296 at 2-3).) Moreover, Defendants argue that they timely objected to this new theory at trial. (Id.)
Defendants further argue that they properly objected to Dr. Bazelon's use of improper assumptions when it filed a motion to strike (that was subsequently denied). (Id. at 2-3 (citing Dkt. Nos. 132 at 4-13, 240 at 14-16).) Defendants also repeat that it was improper for the Court to exclude relevant testing demonstrating that Dr. Bazelon's assumptions were wrong. (Id. at 3.) The test data was not disclosed prior to close of discovery because it did not exist, Defendants contend. (Id.) Further, Defendants contend, it was prejudicial for the Court to exclude this data because no other admitted evidence compared performance of the very same radio with the feature on and the feature off. (Id.)
Defendants also contend that excluding the Verizon and Ericsson covenants was highly prejudicial. (Id. at 4.) According to Defendants, the statements regarding the volume of sales that Finesse relied upon are not accurate and were presumably added by Finesse to the stipulation. (Id.) In...
To continue reading
Request your trial