Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 March 2021
• Docket Number: C.A. No. 18-363-RGA,C.A. No. 17-1736-RGA,C.A. No. 18-362-RGA,C.A. No. 18-361-RGA,C.A. No. 17-1734-RGA
• Parties: SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP., Defendant. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. WIDEOPENWEST, INC., et al., Defendants. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC BROADBAND FINANCE, LLC, et al., Defendants. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS, LLC, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP., Defendant.

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. WIDEOPENWEST, INC., et al., Defendants.

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC BROADBAND FINANCE, LLC, et al., Defendants.

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS, LLC, et al., Defendants.

C.A. No. 17-1734-RGA

C.A. No. 17-1736-RGA

C.A. No. 18-361-RGA

C.A. No. 18-362-RGA

C.A. No. 18-363-RGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

March 16, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Christina B. Vavala and Stephen J. Kraftschik, POLSINELLI PC, Wilmington, DE; Aaron E. Hankel, B. Trent Webb, John D. Garretson, Jonathan M. Hernandez, Jordan T. Bergsten, Lauren E. Douville, Lydia C. Raw, Mark D. Schafer, Ryan D. Dykal, Ryan J. Schletzbaum, and Thomas M. Patton, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, Kansas City, MO; Michael W. Gray and Robert H. Reckers, SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, Houston, TX, attorneys for Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company LP.

Kelly E. Farnan, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER PA, Wilmington, DE; Alex Henriques, Robert A. Appleby, Ryan Kane, James E. Marina, Gregory Arovas, and Jeanne M. Heffernan, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, NY; Bao T. Nguyen, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, San Francisco, CA; Gregory Polins, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Chicago, IL; Luke Dauchot, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel L. Reisner, David S. Benyacar, and Michael Block, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, New York, NY; Robert J. Katerberg, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, DC; Thomas T. Carmack, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Palo Alto, CA, attorneys for Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. et al.

Andrew C. Mayo, ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE; Robinson Vu, Lindsay Volpenhein Cutié, Natalie Alfaro Gonzales, and Amy E. Bergeron, BAKER BOTTS LLP., Houston, TX; Timothy S. Durst, BAKER BOTTS LLP, Dallas, TX, attorneys for Defendants Mediacom Communications Corp., WideOpenWest Networks, Inc., Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC, and Grande Communications Networks, LLC, et al./s/ Richard G. Andrews

ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Under Daubert. (D.I. 466, 467). I have reviewed the parties' briefing. (D.I. 468, 497, 522).¹ I heard oral argument on some issues on November 30, 2020. (D.I. 554).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sprint Communications alleged patent infringement against Defendants Charter Communications, Mediacom Communications,² WideOpenWest,³ Atlantic Broadband Finance,⁴ and Grande Communications Networks.⁵ Plaintiff currently asserts that Defendants' Voice-over-IP ("VoIP") systems infringe nine⁶ patents, which can be grouped into the Call Control Patents, the Broadband Patents, and the Enhanced Services Patent. The Call Control Patents are Nos. 6,452,932 ("the '932 Patent"), 6,463,052 ("the '052 Patent"), 6,633,561 ("the '3,561 Patent"), 7,286,561 ("the '6,561 Patent"), and 7,505,454 (the '454 Patent"). The Broadband Patents are Nos. 6,343,084 ("the '084 Patent"), 6,473,429 ("the '429 Patent"), and 6,298,064 ("the '064 Patent"). Patent No 6,697,340 ("the '340 Patent") is the Enhanced Services Patent. The Broadband Patents and the Call Control Patents are also called the "Christie Patents." (D.I. 468at 2). The Broadband Patents are also called the Asynchronous Transfer Mode ("ATM") Patents. (Id.).⁷

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Summary Judgment

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The moving party has the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuinely disputed material fact relative to the claims in question. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). Material facts are those "that could affect the outcome" of the proceeding, and "a dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177, 181 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

The burden then shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989). A non-moving party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support such an assertion by: "(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, orother materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited [by the opposing party] do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute . . . ." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1).

When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). A dispute is "genuine" only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-49. If the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.

B. Daubert Motion

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 sets out the requirements for expert witness testimony and states:

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. The trial court has 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 Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594, 597 (1993).

The Third Circuit has explained:

Rule 702 embodies a trilogy of restrictions on expert testimony: qualification, reliability and fit. Qualification refers to the requirement that the witness possess specialized expertise. We haveinterpreted this requirement liberally, holding that "a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert." Secondly, the testimony must be reliable; it "must be based on the 'methods and procedures of science' rather than on 'subjective belief or unsupported speculation'; the expert must have 'good grounds' for his o[r] her belief. In sum, Daubert holds that an inquiry into the reliability of scientific evidence under Rule 702 requires a determination as to its scientific validity." Finally, Rule 702 requires that the expert testimony must fit the issues in the case. In other words, the expert's testimony must be relevant for the purposes of the case and must assist the trier of fact. The Supreme Court explained in Daubert that "Rule 702's 'helpfulness' standard requires a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility."

By means of a so-called "Daubert hearing," the district court acts as a gatekeeper, preventing opinion testimony that does not meet the requirements of qualification, reliability and fit from reaching the jury.

Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404-05 (3d Cir. 2003) (footnote and internal citations omitted).⁸ At base, "the question of whether the expert is credible or the opinion is correct is generally a question for the fact finder, not the court." Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 802 F.3d 1283, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Indeed, "[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of the ATM Patents

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement of the ATM patents (the '084 Patent, the '429 Patent, and the '064 Patent). (D.I. 468 at 3). As an example, Claim 1 of the '084 Patent recites:

1. A method of operating an interworking unit to handle a plurality of calls, the method comprising:

receiving messages into the interworking unit on a call-by-call basis where each one of the messages indicates one of a plurality of synchronous connections and a corresponding one of a plurality of identifiers;

receiving user communications for the calls from the synchronous connections indicated in the messages into the interworking unit;

in response to the messages, converting the user communications from the synchronous connections into asynchronous communications including the corresponding identifiers; and

transferring the asynchronous communications from the interworking unit for subsequent routing based on the identifiers.

'084 Patent at col. 23:20-36.

Defendants contend that summary judgment in their favor is warranted as they do not use ATM interworking multiplexers and do not use ATM technology. (D.I. 468 at 3). Defendants assert that Plaintiff...