Apple v. Samsung - Samsung Motion For JNOV (2018)

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3828 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 5
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP
 John B. Quinn (Bar No. 90378)
johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
 William C. Price (Bar No. 108542)
williamprice@quinnemanuel.com
 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
 Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

Kathleen M. Sullivan (Bar No. 242261)
 kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
 kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
 victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
 Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
 APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
 Plaintiff, SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
 vs. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO
SAMSUNG’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL,
 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New AND/OR REMITTITUR
York corporation; SAMSUNG
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.




 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
2 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively,
3 “Samsung”) hereby bring this administrative motion for an order to seal certain information filed
4 in connection with Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,
5 New Trial, and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59.
6 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11, Samsung’s counsel met and conferred with Apple’s counsel
7 regarding this motion to seal. Apple does not oppose Samsung’s Administrative Motion to File
8 Documents Under Seal as a procedural mechanism for requesting that portions of Samsung’s
9 Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur be
10 placed under seal. Apple reserves the right to challenge any proposed redactions to the extent it
11 believes those redactions improperly seal non-confidential information. Samsung does not file a
12 proposed redacted version of the aforementioned documents in accordance with the Court’s Order
13 requiring the parties to meet and confer before filing public redacted documents. Case No. 11-cv-
14 01846, Dkt. No. 2934 (Jan. 29, 2014). Within seven days of Apple or any third party filing
15 declarations in support of sealing, if any, the parties will prepare and Samsung will file a final
16 consolidated and conformed copy of the materials identifying what information parties have
17 supported sealing in their declarations.
18 RELIEF REQUESTED
19 Samsung requests an order granting Samsung’s motion to file under seal the following
20 documents:
21 Document Portions to be Filed Parties Claiming

Under Seal1 Confidentiality
22
Declaration of Michael Wagner in See conformed highlighted Apple, Samsung
23 Support of Samsung’s Motion for version of document to be
Judgment as a Matter of Law, New
Trial, and/or Remittitur filed within 7 days of
24
declarations in support.
25
26
1
27 Concurrently with this Administrative Motion, Samsung files versions of documents that
highlight information Samsung requests be sealed highlighted in yellow.
28
-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Under Seal1 Confidentiality
2
Exhibit B to Declaration of Michael See conformed highlighted Apple, Samsung
3 Wagner version of document to be
filed within 7 days of
4
5
6 I. THE “COMPELLING REASONS” STANDARD APPLIES

7 Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial,
8 and/or Remittitur is a dispositive motion, which may be sealed in the Ninth Circuit so long as the
9 party seeking to seal provides “compelling reasons […] supported by specific factual findings that
10 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v.
11 City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-1179 (9th Cir. 2006). A party has “compelling
12 reasons” to seal information in a filing when disclosure of that information would “release trade
13 secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, or when the material would disclose “sources of business
14 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
15 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Compelling reasons have been found to seal, for example, documents
16 containing confidential source code (Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-cv-
17 1846, D.I. 2190 at 3 (Dec. 10, 2012); documents containing “information about [a party’s]
18 business performance, structure, and finances that could be used to gain unfair business advantage
19 against them,” Schwartz v. Cook, No. 5:15-cv-03347-BLF, 2016 WL 1301186, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
20 Apr. 4, 2016); documents containing “highly sensitive information regarding [the party’s] product
21 architecture and development,” Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No. 13–cv–04613–BLF, 2014 WL
22 4145520, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014); and documents in the form of “emails containing
23 information about [a party’s] business practices, recruitment efforts, and discussions regarding
24 potential partnerships with other product manufacturers,” Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Elec-Tech
25 International Co., Ltd., No. 14–cv–02737–BLF, 2015 WL 581574, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10,
26 2015).
27
28
-2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 II. COMPELLING REASONS EXISTS TO PERMIT FILING UNDER SEAL

2 Samsung maintains a claim of confidentiality as to the portions of the Declaration of
3 Michael Wagner in Support of Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial,
4 and/or Remittitur and Exhibit B thereto that reveal highly confidential financial information in the
5 calculation of damages.
6 Samsung considers the financial data included in the Declaration of Michael Wagner and
7 Exhibit B thereto to be highly confidential. Samsung does not report this type of data to investors,
8 regulatory bodies, the press, or business analysts. This type of information is highly confidential
9 to Samsung and Samsung takes extraordinary steps to maintain the secrecy of the information.
10 Even within Samsung’s finance and accounting groups, such data can only be accessed by certain
11 personnel on a restricted, need-to-know basis. This type of data guides Samsung’s pricing,
12 distribution, financial planning, and other business decisions.
13 Samsung would face harm from public disclosure of the financial information identified in
14 the Declaration of Michael Wagner and Exhibit B thereto. Competitors could use this highly
15 confidential information, in conjunction with other public pleadings in this action, to derive per-
16 unit, per-product sales data of various Samsung products. Armed with this information, a
17 competitor could charge a lower price in an effort to gain market share. Competitors could also
18 use knowledge of Samsung’s highest-and lowest-performing product lines to target marketing and
19 advertising efforts. Such highly confidential financial data is properly sealable. See Apple v.
20 Samsung, 727 F.3d 1214, 1224-26 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The parties assert that their detailed product-
21 specific information concerning such things as costs, sales, profits, and profit margins qualifies as
22 trade secrets. . . . [W]e conclude that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the
23 information unsealed.”). The Court previously sealed similar financial information when it
24 granted Samsung’s motion to seal portions of the January 2018 expert report of Julie Davis. See
25 Dkt. 3635 at 6 (granting sealing of Dkt. 3593-4).
26 Because the calculations in the in the Declaration of Michael Wagner and Exhibit B thereto
27 are based in part on calculations that Apple designated highly confidential under the protective
28
-3- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1 order, Samsung also moves to seal information designated highly confidential by Apple. Samsung
2 expects that Apple will file the required supporting declaration in accordance with Civil Local
3 Rule 79-5 as necessary to confirm whether the information should be sealed.
4 III. CONCLUSION
5 For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant this
6 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.
8 DATED: June 7, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP
9
10
11 /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis

John B. Quinn
12 Kathleen M. Sullivan
William C. Price
13 Michael T. Zeller
14 Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
15
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
16 LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
17
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
18 AMERICA, LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3828-1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 5

SULLIVAN, LLP
 John B. Quinn (Bar No. 90378)
johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
 William C. Price (Bar No. 108542)
williamprice@quinnemanuel.com
 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
 Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

Kathleen M. Sullivan (Bar No. 242261)
 kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
 kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
 victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
 Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
 APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MARK GRAY IN

SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
 vs. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL DOCUMENTS RELATING
 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a TO SAMSUNG’S NOTICE OF MOTION
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL,
York corporation; SAMSUNG AND/OR REMITTITUR
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.





GRAY DECL. ISO SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
1 I, Mark Gray, declare:
2 1. I am a member of the State Bar of California, admitted to practice before this
3 Court, and an attorney at the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, attorneys for
4 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
5 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”).1 I make this declaration of
6 personal, firsthand knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify as
7 set forth below.
8 2. Pursuant to Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, I make this declaration in support of
9 Samsung’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Relating to Samsung’s Notice of
10 Motion and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur.
11 3. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(e), compelling reasons exist to seal the documents that
12 contain Samsung confidential information and are identified in Samsung’s motion to seal, and
13 below.
14 4. The following chart indicates the documents that Samsung seeks to seal:

Under Seal Confidentiality
16
Declaration of Michael Wagner in See conformed highlighted Apple, Samsung
17 Support of Samsung’s Motion for version of document to be
Judgment as a Matter of Law, New
Trial, and/or Remittitur filed within 7 days of
18
19 Exhibit B to Declaration of Michael See conformed highlighted Apple, Samsung
Wagner version of document to be
20
filed within 7 days of
21 declarations in support.
22 5. Samsung seeks to seal portions of the Declaration of Michael Wagner in Support of
23 Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur and Exhibit B
24 thereto that reveal highly confidential financial information in the calculation of damages.
25
26 1
Effective January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America (“STA”) merged with
and into Samsung Electronics America, and therefore STA no longer exists as a separate
27 corporate entity.
28
-1- Case No. 11-CV-1846-LHK
1 Samsung considers this financial data to be highly confidential. Samsung does not report this type
2 of data to investors, regulatory bodies, the press, or business analysts. This type of information is
3 highly confidential to Samsung and Samsung takes extraordinary steps to maintain the secrecy of
4 the information. Even within Samsung’s finance and accounting groups, such data can only be
5 accessed by certain personnel on a restricted, need-to-know basis. This type of data guides
6 Samsung’s pricing, distribution, financial planning, and other business decisions.
7 6. Samsung would face harm from public disclosure of the financial information
8 identified in the Declaration of Michael Wagner in Support of Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as
9 a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur and Exhibit B thereto. Competitors could use this
10 highly confidential information, in conjunction with other public pleadings in this action, to derive
11 per-unit, per-product sales data of various Samsung products. Armed with this information, a
12 competitor could charge a lower price in an effort to gain market share. Competitors could also
13 use knowledge of Samsung’s highest-and lowest-performing product lines to target marketing and
14 advertising efforts. Such highly confidential financial data is properly sealable. See Apple v.
15 Samsung, 727 F.3d 1214, 1224-26 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The parties assert that their detailed product-
16 specific information concerning such things as costs, sales, profits, and profit margins qualifies as
17 trade secrets. . . . [W]e conclude that the district court abused its discretion in ordering the
18 information unsealed.”).
19 7. As explained in Samsung’s administrative motion, it is possible that Apple may
20 claim confidentiality over the information in the Declaration of Michael Wagner in Support of
21 Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur and Exhibit B
22 thereto. If so, Samsung expects that Apple will file the required supporting declaration in
23 accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 as necessary to confirm whether the information should be
24 sealed.
25
26
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June
27
7, 2018, at Redwood City, California.
28
1 Dated: June 7, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP
2
4
By /s/ Mark Gray
5
Mark Gray
6
Attorney for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
INC. and SAMSUNG
8 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ATTESTATION
2
3 I, Victoria Maroulis, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
4 Declaration. In compliance with Civil Local Rules 5-1(i), I hereby attest that Mark Gray has
5 concurred in this filing.
7 Dated: June 7, 2018 /s/ Victoria Maroulis

Victoria Maroulis
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

John B. Quinn (Bar No. 90378)
2 johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com
William C. Price (Bar No. 108542)
3 williamprice@quinnemanuel.com
Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
4 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
5 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
6 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
7 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Bar No. 242261)

kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
8 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
9 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
10 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
11 Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
12
13 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
14 Telecommunications America, LLC
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17 SAN JOSE DIVISION
18 APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

19 SAMSUNG’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
Plaintiff,
20 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
vs. MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL,
21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
22 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New PROCEDURE 50 AND 59
York corporation; SAMSUNG Date: July 26, 2018
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Time: 1:30 p.m.
24 AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
25 Defendants.
26
27
28
-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, AND/OR REMITTITUR
1 NOTICE OF MOTION
2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
4 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively,
5 “Samsung”)1 shall and hereby do move the Court for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed.
6 R. Civ. P. 50(b), renewing Samsung’s prior request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), and
7 alternatively for a new trial and/or remittitur pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, as to each and every
8 claim and issue on which Apple prevailed before the jury, as more fully set forth below.2
9 This motion for judgment as a matter of law is made on the grounds that no reasonable jury
10 could have found that any of Apple’s asserted design patents was applied to Samsung’s entire
11 accused smartphones; that no reasonable jury could have failed to find that Apple’s D’305 patent
12 was applied only to the smartphones’ display screens; that no reasonable jury could have failed to
13 find that Apple’s D’677 patent was applied only to the smartphones’ glass front faces; that no
14 reasonable jury could have failed to find that Apple’s D’087 patent was applied only to the
15 smartphones’ glass front faces with bezels; that no reasonable jury could have failed to adopt
16 Samsung’s proffered calculations of the proportion of its profits attributable to the above-
17 identified component articles of manufacture; that no reasonable jury could have failed to find that
18 Samsung’s operating expenses (i.e., sales, marketing, general and administrative (G&A), and
19 research and development (R&D) costs) were reasonably allocated to the infringing products and
20 therefore deductible in determining its “total profit” under 35 U.S.C. § 289; and that no reasonable
21 jury could have determined that Samsung’s “total profit” exceeded $28.085 million (or alternative
22 calculations set forth herein should the Court grant this motion only in part). The motion for a
23 new trial and/or remittitur is made on the grounds that the jury’s verdict is excessive and against
24
25 Effective January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America (“STA”) merged with

1
and into Samsung Electronics America, and therefore STA no longer exists as a separate corporate
26 entity.
2
Samsung is not hereby moving for relief with respect to the jury’s damages awards
27 regarding Apple’s utility patent numbers 7,469,381 and 7,864,163. Accordingly, the references
herein to the jury’s damages awards refer to the awards for infringement of Apple’s design
28 patents.
-i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 the weight of the evidence on each and every issue identified above, and that the evidence
2 supports a verdict of no more than $28.085 million (or alternative calculations set forth herein
3 should the Court grant this motion only in part).
4 This motion is based on this notice of motion; the accompanying memorandum of points
5 and authorities; the accompanying declaration of Michael Wagner; the records of this Court, the
6 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court; and such other written
7 or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under submission
8 by the Court.
9 RELIEF REQUESTED
10 Samsung respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as a matter of law that:
11 i. Apple’s D’305 patent was not applied to Samsung’s entire accused smartphones;
12 ii. Apple’s D’677 patent was not applied to Samsung’s entire accused smartphones;
13 iii. Apple’s D’087 patent was not applied to Samsung’s entire accused smartphones;
14 iv. Apple’s D’305 patent was applied only to the smartphones’ display screens;
15 v. Apple’s D’677 patent was applied only to the smartphones’ glass front faces;
16 vi. Apple’s D’087 patent was applied only to the smartphones’ glass front faces with
17 bezels;
18 vii. the proportions of Samsung’s profits attributable to the above-identified

19 component articles of manufacture are as calculated by Samsung’s expert Mr.
20 Wagner;
21 viii. Samsung’s sales, marketing, G&A, and R&D costs are deductible in calculating
22 Samsung’s “total profit” under 35 U.S.C. § 289; and
23 ix. Samsung’s “total profit” was no more than $28.085 million (or alternative
24 calculations set forth herein should the Court grant this motion only in part).
25 In the alternative, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant a new trial, or new
26 trial conditioned on Apple’s rejection of a remittitur to $28.085 million (or alternative calculations
27 set forth herein should the Court grant this motion only in part).
28 Additionally, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court rule that the jury:
-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 a. found that Apple’s D’305 patent was applied to Samsung’s entire phones;
2 b. found that Apple’s D’677 patent was applied to the display assemblies of
3 Samsung’s phones;
4 c. found that the proportions of Samsung’s profits attributable to its display
5 assemblies were as calculated by Samsung’s expert Mr. Wagner; and
6 d. did not deduct any of Samsung’s sales, marketing, G&A, and R&D costs in
7 calculating its “total profit” under 35 U.S.C. § 289.
9 DATED: June 7, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP
10
11
12 By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis

John B. Quinn
13 Kathleen M. Sullivan
William C. Price
14 Michael T. Zeller
Kevin P.B. Johnson
15
16
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
INC., and SAMSUNG
18 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. iv
4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................... 1
5
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 4
6
I. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE RELEVANT AOMS ................................. 5
7 A. Apple’s Designs Were Not Applied To The Entire Phones As A Matter Of
Law ............................................................................................................................... 5
8
B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Under The Court’s Four-Factor Test That
9 The Designs Were Applied To Any Article Of Manufacture Other Than The
Glass Front Face, Glass Front Face With Bezel, And Display Screen ........................ 8
10
1. Phones Found To Infringe Only The D’305 Patent ......................................... 8
11
2. Phones Found To Infringe Only The D’677 Patent ....................................... 12
12 3. Phones Found To Infringe The D’305 And D’677 Patents ............................ 15
13 4. Phones Found To Infringe The D’305, D’677, And D’087 Patents............... 16
14 C. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Under The Correct Two-Factor Test That
The Designs Were Applied To Any Article Of Manufacture Other Than
15 Those That Samsung Identified.................................................................................. 18
16 II. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE PERCENTAGES OF ITS

ENTIRE-PHONE PROFITS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS
17 COMPONENT AOMS .......................................................................................................... 18
III. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIBLE
18
OPERATING EXPENSES .................................................................................................... 19
19 A. Reasonably Allocated Operating Expenses Are Deductible Under § 289 As
A Matter Of Law ........................................................................................................ 19
20
B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find That Samsung’s Expenses Were Not
21 Reasonably Allocated To The Infringing Phones ...................................................... 21
22 IV. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE AMOUNT OF DESIGN-
PATENT DAMAGES OR AT MINIMUM TO REMITTITUR OR A NEW TRIAL .......... 23
23
A. The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence To Support The Damages Verdict ............... 23
24 B. The Court Should At Minimum Grant A New Trial And/Or Remittitur ................... 24
25 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 25
26
27
28
-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
3 Cases
4 Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
496 F. Supp. 476 (D. Minn. 1980) ...................................................................................... 20
5
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
6 222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) ...................................................................................................... 6
7 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,

234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ................................................................................................ 10, 14
8
Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc.,
9 427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 4
10 Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada),

803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 19
11
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
12 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 8
13 Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd,

762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 25
14
Fisher v. City of San Jose,
15 558 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 5, 23
16 Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,

772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985) ............................................................................................... 20
17
Gillette v. Delmore,
18 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................... 4
19 Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White,
81 U.S. 511 (1871) ................................................................................................................ 6
20
Hamil Am. Inc. v. GFI,
21 193 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 20
22 In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.,

471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................. 2
23
In re Hruby,
24 373 F.2d 997 (C.C.P.A. 1967)........................................................................... 6, 7, 8, 12, 15
25 In re Stevens,
173 F.2d 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1949)............................................................................................. 6
26
In re Zahn,
27 617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980)................................................................................... 6, 12, 16
28
-iv- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cty.,

556 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 4
2
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
3 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 2, 19, 24
4 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,

517 U.S. 370 (1996) .............................................................................................................. 8
5
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.,
6 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................... 25
7 Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................... 20
8
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.,
9 2012 WL 4017808 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012) .................................................................... 20
10 Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG,

65 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 25
11
Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC,
12 739 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 9, 12, 16
13 Rattray v. City of National City,

51 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................. 25
14
Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc.,
15 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016) ............................................................................ 1, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 18
16 Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Manufacturing Co.,

620 F.2d 1166 (6th Cir. 1980) ............................................................................................. 20
17
Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Wing Shing Products (BVI) Ltd.,
18 311 B.R. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ............................................................................................ 20
19 Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
612 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 2
20
Tremaine v. Hitchcock & Co.,
21 90 U.S. 518 (1874) .............................................................................................................. 20
22 Untermeyer v. Freund,
50 F. 77 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1892), aff’d, 58 F. 205 (2d Cir. 1893) ............................................ 6
23
Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.,
24 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 25
25 Wordtech Sys., Inc v. Integrated Networks Sols., Inc.,

609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 25
26
Young v Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co.,
27 268 F 966 (6th Cir. 1920) ...................................................................................................... 6
28
-v- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Statutes and Rules

2 35 U.S.C. § 271 ................................................................................................................................. 7
3 35 U.S.C. § 289 ........................................................................................................................ passim
4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) .......................................................................................................................... 1
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)...................................................................................................................... 1, 4
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ............................................................................................................................ 25
7 Other Authorities
8 MPEP § 1504.01(a) ........................................................................................................................... 7
9 H.R. Rep. No. 49-1966 .................................................................................................................... 19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-vi- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), Samsung renews its Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) motion for
3 judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), see Tr. 1348:12-1356:25. Samsung respectfully requests
4 that the total profit award be reduced as a matter of law to $28.085 million to reflect that the
5 relevant articles of manufacture (“AOMs”) are the glass front face, glass front face with bezel, and
6 display screen of Samsung’s phones (not the entire phones) and to deduct operating costs, or in the
7 alternative reduced as a matter of law to the other amounts as set forth in Part IV below if the
8 Court declines to adopt Samsung’s position in full. Alternatively, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59,
9 Samsung requests remittitur to those same amounts or a new trial.
10 STATEMENT OF FACTS
11 At step one of the Supreme Court’s § 289 framework—“identify the ‘article of
12 manufacture’ to which the infringed design has been applied,” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc.,
13 137 S. Ct. 429, 434 (2016)—Apple sought to prove that the relevant AOMs for each asserted
14 design patent were Samsung’s entire smartphones. Samsung rebutted Apple’s position by
15 introducing evidence that the patented designs were applied only to components of the phones:
16 the glass front faces (D’677), glass front faces with bezels (D’087) and display screens (D’305).
17 Apple offered no alternative AOM evidence of its own, resting its case on its entire-phone theory.
18 At step two—“calculate the infringer’s total profit made on that article of manufacture,”
19 Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434—Apple asserted that Samsung’s total profit was $1,067,128,207. Tr.
20 PX25K.4. Apple calculated that amount by subtracting Samsung’s cost of goods sold from its
21 total revenue, making no deduction for operating expenses. See Tr. 825:22-826:3 (Davis assumed
22 entire phone was AOM); Tr. 737:16-19, 739:12-15, 770:16-24, 826:19-22 (Davis; no deduction
23 for operating expenses); PX25K.4.3
24 Samsung introduced evidence that the total profit from the relevant AOMs was $28.085
25 million. Tr. 1060:17-1061:1 (Wagner); DX 4537.002. Samsung’s expert Wagner testified that he
26 Because of differences in notice dates, Apple sought total profit only based on the D’677
3
patent for the period April 15, 2011 through June 15, 2011. Apple sought total profit for units
27 found to infringe both the D’305 and D’677 patents for the period June 16, 2011 to June 30,
2012. See PX25L.3. Each unit found to infringe the D’087 patent also infringed the D’305 patent,
28 so Apple did not separately seek profits for the D’087 patent. See Tr. 708:2-8 (Davis).
-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 derived this figure by (1) determining the amount of Samsung’s profit on each phone by deducting
2 costs of goods sold and operating expenses with a nexus to the adjudicated products, and then (2)
3 multiplying that entire-phone profit figure by the percentage of each phone’s total material costs
4 that were attributable to each relevant AOM (the glass front face (D’677), glass front face with
5 bezel (D’087), and display screen (D’305)). Tr. 1031:3-1049:6 (Wagner; cost deduction); 1055:1-
6 1061:1 (Wagner; component cost percentages); DX4536.004; DX4537.002-003.
7 The jury awarded Apple $533,316,606 in Samsung’s profits, or 49.98% of the total amount
8 that Apple had sought. Dkt. 3806. Over Samsung’s objection (Dkt. 3720), the Court used a
9 verdict form providing for a single damages amount for each product without identifying the
10 relevant AOMs, as Samsung had requested (Dkt. 3671-2). In this circumstance, it is appropriate to
11 “work[] the math backwards” to determine the basis for the awards, Lucent Techs., Inc. v.
12 Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
13 Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re First Alliance Mortg. Co., 471 F.3d 977, 1001-03
14 (9th Cir. 2006), as this Court recognized in its 2013 order granting a partial retrial, Dkt. 2271, at 8.
15 Working the math backwards by comparing the jury’s verdicts with the experts’ damages
16 calculations reveals the following: First, because the jury awarded 100% of Apple’s profit
17 calculation for each unit found to infringe the D’305 patent, it must have found that the D’305
18 patent was applied to Samsung’s entire phones. Second, the jury must have found that the D’677
19 patent was applied to the display assemblies in Samsung’s phones because, for each unit found to
20 infringe only the D’677 patent, awarded a percentage of Apple’s profit calculation that precisely
21 reflected Wagner’s calculation of the display assembly’s cost as a percentage of each phone’s total
22 material cost. Third, the jury did not deduct any of Samsung’s operating costs for any of the
23 phones. Fourth, because each unit found to infringe the D’087 patent also infringed the D’305
24 patent, the jury (heeding the double recovery bar) must not have awarded any amounts for the
25 D’087 patent separate from the D’305 patent. The jury’s awards are analyzed in the following
26 chart (see also Wagner Decl. ¶¶ 11-21), which shows Apple’s per-patent profit calculations
27 (PX25.L3), Mr. Wagner’s cost percentages for the display assembly (DX4536.002), and the jury’s
28 verdict (Dkt. 3761):
-2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Product Design Patent(s)4 Apple Entire Display Jury’s Basis of

Phone Profit Assembly Award Jury’s
2 Calculations Cost5 Award
Captivate D’305 only $16,618,320 -- $16,618,320 100% of
3 Apple’s
request
4
Continuum D’305 only $5,149,345 -- $5,149,345 100% of
5 Apple’s
request
6 Droid Charge D’305 only $54,839,113 -- $54,839,113 100% of
Apple’s
7 request
Epic 4G D’305 only $43,486,055 -- $43,486,055 100% of
8 Apple’s
request
9
Gem D’305 only $4,434,398 -- $4,434,398 100% of
10 Apple’s
request
11 Indulge D’305 only $15,681,286 -- $15,681,286 100% of
Apple’s
12 request
Galaxy S II D’677 only $101,235,891 26.6% $26,928,747 26.6% of
13 (AT&T) Apple’s
request
14 Galaxy S II D’677 only $250,817,469 25.3% $63,456,820 25.3% of
(Epic 4G Apple’s
15 Touch) request
16 Galaxy S II D’677 only $80,683,895 24.9% $20,090,290 24.9% of
(Skyrocket) Apple’s
17 request
Galaxy S II (T‐ D’677 only $209,479,270 25.8% $54,045,652 25.8% of
18 Mobile) Apple’s
request
19 Fascinate D’305/D’677 $4,835,386 -- $4,835,386 100% of
D’677-only period $13,865,764 29.2% $4,048,803 Apple’s
20 D’305
$8,884,189
request +
21 29.2% of
Apple’s
22 D’677-only
request
23
Galaxy S D’305/D’677 $28,466,835 -- $28,466,835 100% of
24 Showcase D’677-only period $8,070,867 27.2% $2,195,276 Apple’s
(i500) $30,662,111 D’305
25 request +
26 4
Although the Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S Showcase (i500), Infuse 4G, Mesmerize,
and Vibrant products were found to infringe multiple patents, some individual units of those
27 phones infringe only the D’677, because of its earlier notice date. Wagner Decl. ¶ 15.
5
The display assembly cost percentages vary slightly due to differences in material costs
28 between the particular phones and their components. Wagner Decl. ¶ 14.
-3- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Product Design Patent(s)4 Apple Entire Display Jury’s Basis of

Phone Profit Assembly Award Jury’s
2 Calculations Cost5 Award
27.2% of
3 Apple’s
D’677-only
4 request
5 Infuse 4G D’305/D’677 $69,223,026 -- $69,223,026 100% of
6 $76,205,628 D’305
request +
7 32% of
Apple’s
8 D’677-only
request
9 Mesmerize D’305/D’677 $30,560,743 -- $30,560,743 100% of
10 $36,901,389 D’305
request +
11 29.2% of
Apple’s
12 D’677-only
request
13 Galaxy S 4G D’305/D’677/D’087 $71,640,437 -- $71,640,437 100% of
14 $75,925,367 D’305
request +
15 29.6% of
Apple’s
16 D’677-only
request
17 Vibrant D’305/D’677/D’087 $0 -- $0 27.4% of
D’677-only period $28,821 27.4% $7,897 Apple’s
18
$7,897 D’677-only
19 request
20 ARGUMENT
21 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), JMOL is required where a plaintiff fails to present a legally
22 sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to rule in its favor, Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah Cty., 556
23 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2009), i.e., where the record does not contain “relevant evidence that a
24 reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion” for the plaintiff on a given
25 issue, Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Gillette v.
26 Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1992)). “[A] reasonable inference cannot be supported by
27 only threadbare conclusory statements instead of significant probative evidence.” Lakeside-Scott,
28 556 F.3d at 802-03. The Court must “apply the law as it should be, rather than the law as it was
-4- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 read to the jury, even if the [moving] party did not object to the jury instructions.” Fisher v. City
2 of San Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quotation omitted).
3 Calculating the amount of Samsung’s “total profit” under § 289 requires determination of
4 two issues: the identity of the relevant AOMs and the total profit from each relevant AOM.
5 Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434. In this case, it was undisputed that if (at step one) the relevant AOM
6 was found to be a product component, then the total profit from that component (step two) could
7 be determined by (i) deducting entire-product expenses from entire-product revenues to calculate
8 Samsung’s entire-product profit, and then (ii) multiplying that amount by the percentage of
9 Samsung’s entire-phone material cost that was attributable to each AOM. Tr. 826:9-18 (Davis);
10 1121:4-17 (Wagner). As shown in Parts I-III below, Samsung is entitled to JMOL on each of
11 these issues. It follows that Samsung is entitled to JMOL on the ultimate amount of its “total
12 profit” under § 289, or at minimum to a new trial conditioned on remittitur.
13 I. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE RELEVANT AOMS

14 As shown above, the jury necessarily found that the D’305 patent was applied to the
15 relevant phones in their entirety and that the D’677 patent was applied only to the relevant phones’
16 display assemblies (not the entire phones). Those findings eliminated any need for the jury to
17 determine the relevant AOMs for the D’087 patent: each unit found to infringe the D’087 patent
18 also infringed the D’305 patent, and the jury’s entire-phone finding for the D’305 patent meant
19 that such units were already subject to an award of entire-phone profits.
20 While the jury rightly found that Apple had not carried its burden to show that the D’677
21 design was applied to Samsung’s entire phones, no reasonable jury could find that Apple carried
22 its burden as to the other patented designs at issue as shown in Part I.A. In fact, as shown in Part
23 I.B-C, no reasonable jury could find that Apple’s designs were applied to any AOM other than
24 those that Samsung identified.
25 A. Apple’s Designs Were Not Applied To The Entire Phones As A Matter Of Law
26 Samsung is entitled to JMOL that none of Apple’s patented designs was applied to any
27 entire Samsung product. This conclusion follows from three related legal rules.
28 First, under basic principles of design-patent law, a design that covers only a limited
-5- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 exterior component of a complex device like a smartphone can only be applied to the particular
2 component on which the design appears. A design patent protects only “that which gives a
3 peculiar or distinctive appearance to the [article of] manufacture,” i.e., the claimed design.
4 Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 525 (1871), quoted in Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 432; see In
5 re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 268 (C.C.P.A. 1980). And a patented design cannot cover an “article[]
6 which [is] concealed or obscure in normal use…, since [its] appearance cannot be a matter of
7 concern.” In re Stevens, 173 F.2d 1015, 1019 (C.C.P.A. 1949). Thus, where a patented design
8 appears only on exterior components of a device that contains concealed internal components, that
9 design cannot be applied to the internal components. For example, because a patented design
10 covering a piano case appears only on the piano case, as a matter of law the design can be applied
11 only to the piano case (and not to the piano inside). Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222
12 F. 902, 903-05 (2d Cir. 1915). Likewise, because a patented design covering a watch case appears
13 only on the watch case, as a matter of law the design can be applied only to the case (and not to
14 the watch). See Untermeyer v. Freund, 50 F. 77 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1892), aff’d, 58 F. 205 (2d Cir.
15 1893)). Similarly, because a patented design covering a refrigerator latch appears only on the
16 latch, as a matter of law the design can be applied only to the latch (and not to the refrigerator).
17 See Young v Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F 966, 973-74 (6th Cir. 1920). As in these
18 cases, because Apple’s patented designs for certain externally visible components of a smartphone
19 appears only on those visible components, as a matter of law—and as Apple admitted before the
20 Supreme Court—such designs can be applied only to those external components and are not
21 applied to the internal “chips and wires” of Samsung’s phones. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple, Inc.,
22 No. 15-777, Tr. 40, (U.S.) (colloquy with Roberts, C.J.); see id. at 43, 51, 52 (Roberts, C.J., Alito
23 & Sotomayor, JJ.).
24 Second, a design that appears on a particular product component is applied only to that
25 component, even if other components cause the design to appear on the component covered by
26 the design. As the Federal Circuit’s predecessor explained in In re Hruby, 373 F.2d 997 (C.C.P.A.
27 1967), “the dependence of the existence of a design on something outside itself” is not a reason to
28 hold that the design was applied to anything beyond the particular AOM on which the design
-6- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 appears. Id. at 1001. Thus, a patented design covering the shape of a fountain’s water spray
2 appears only on the water, so the design is applied only to the water (and not to the mechanism
3 that produces the water spray). See id.
4 Third, the trier of fact must identify the relevant AOM based on the infringing product as
5 it existed at the time of sale. Infringement occurs and a claim for Section 289 profits arises upon
6 the sale of an AOM to which a patented design has been applied, or of a product in which such an
7 AOM is a component. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 289. The AOM to which a patented design was
8 applied must therefore be determined by considering whether, as of the time of sale, the patented
9 design was applied to the entire product or only a component of the product. Whether the patented
10 design was applied to or appears on a component after the component has been separated from the
11 product is irrelevant, for the relevant AOM is determined as of the time of sale.
12 Under these principles, Apple’s designs were not applied to Samsung’s entire smartphones.
13 Apple bore the burden to show that they were, Tr. 1232:17-19, but failed to meet that burden.
14 The D’305 design: This GUI design appears only on the display screen of Samsung’s
15 phones and not on any other phone components. Some internal phone components may cause the
16 GUI design to appear on the screen, but it does not follow that the design is applied to those
17 components. See Hruby, 373 F.2d at 1001 (design was not applied to fountain mechanism even
18 though mechanism caused fountain design to appear). Rather, as the PTO has stated, a GUI
19 design is necessarily “for” or “applied to” the “computer screen, monitor, [or] other display panel”
20 on which the design appears, and “[t]he dependence of a computer-generated icon on a central
21 processing unit and computer program for its existence” does not mean that the design is “for” or
22 applied to more than just the display screen. MPEP § 1504.01(a) (citations omitted). And because
23 the identity of the relevant AOM must be determined at the time of sale, it is immaterial that the
24 display screen is incapable of displaying the design after the screen is separated from the product.
25 In any event, the D’305 patent certainly is not applied to the entire smartphone. Most
26 smartphone components have nothing to do with that design; a smartphone’s external casing, its
27 speakers, or a camera lens, for example, neither show the patented design nor cause it to be shown.
28 The evidence at trial was undisputed that an entire phone was not necessary to show the D’305
-7- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 design on a display screen. Tr. 1019:24-1020:20 (Lucente). Indeed, there is no dispute that the
2 D’305 patent is practiced by products like the iPod (Tr. 962:5-8 (Lucente)) that do not contain all
3 the features and components of a smartphone. For that reason alone, the D’305 design was not
4 applied to Samsung’s entire smartphones, as a matter of law.
5 The D’677 design: The jury found that the D’677 design was not applied to Samsung’s
6 entire phones, see supra, at 2, and as a matter of law it could not have been. The design appears
7 only on the glass front face of Samsung’s phones and nowhere else. Although juxtaposition with
8 the display assembly may cause the glass front face to appear black, that display assembly is
9 merely the means through which one element of the patented design (the black color) is made to
10 appear on the glass front face. The D’677 design does not appear on the display assembly itself,
11 and it therefore is not applied to that assembly. See Hruby, 373 F.2d at 1001; Tr. 1013:19-1014:17
12 (Lucente). In all events, the entire phone is not required to cause the front face to appear black,
13 and therefore, the D’677 patent is not applied to an entire phone as a matter of law.
14 The D’087 design: A fortiori, the D’087 design cannot be applied to an entire phone.
15 The claimed design appears only a phone’s front face and bezel, and there is no dispute that its
16 appearance does not depend on any other component.
17 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Under The Court’s Four-Factor Test That
The Designs Were Applied To Any Article Of Manufacture Other Than The
18 Glass Front Face, Glass Front Face With Bezel, And Display Screen
19 Samsung is also entitled to JMOL that, under the Court’s four-factor test, the AOMs to
20 which it applied the patented designs are the particular components that Samsung identified at
21 trial. See Tr. 1231:11-1232:1 (four-factor test).
22 1. Phones Found To Infringe Only The D’305 Patent

23 With respect to the six phones found to infringe only the D’305 patent (Captivate,
24 Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Gem, and Indulge), no reasonable jury could find that the
25 relevant AOM is anything other than a phone’s display screen.
26 Factor 1. The scope of a patented design is a matter of law for the Court to decide. Cf.
27 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996); Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v.
28 Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). Here, it is undisputed that the D’305
-8- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 patent covers a single, specific grid of 16 GUI icons. JX1042; see Tr. 962:15-16 (Lucente: patent
2 claims “one single image of a graphical array of icons”). Apple’s expert Kare admitted that
3 “nothing outside of th[e] image” depicted in the D’305 patent “is actually claimed,” that the
4 patent’s scope is “limited to what’s inside” the broken lines on the image, that “it’s just this one
5 image which is what is claimed in this patent,” and that the patent “doesn’t claim any part of the
6 inside of the phone or the outside of the phone.” Tr. 644:23-645:20, 646:5-7. The patent
7 description confirms that the broken lines limit the scope of the claim. JX1042.2 (“The broken
8 line showing of a display screen in both views forms no part of the claimed design.”); Tr. 1229
9 (Instruction 26). And Apple is precluded from seeking to expand the claim beyond the single
10 patented grid because, in order to obtain the D’305 patent, it affirmatively surrendered nearly 200
11 GUI images that had been included in its application. See Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v.
12 Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d 694, 701-02 (Fed. Cir. 2014); JX1063.117-.128; JX1042.2.
13 Factor 2. No reasonable jury could find that the D’305 design “is a significant attribute of
14 the entire product, affecting the appearance of the product as a whole,” as would be necessary for
15 factor two to support an entire-product AOM (U.S. Br. 28; see Dkt. 3645 at 11). As Kare agreed,
16 this inquiry requires the factfinder to “look at the product as a whole,” “assessing the prominence
17 of this one page of the graphical user interface” in relation to “all th[e] different functions,
18 features, components” that go into the product. Tr. 650:1-18.6 But the D’305 design does not
19 even appear on the Samsung phones’ home screens (Tr. 389:22-390:12 (Joswiak); Tr. 650:21-
20 651:13 (Kare)), and Apple did not accuse the home screens of Samsung phones of using the D’305
21 design, Tr. 661:11-16 (Kare). Instead, the design appears only on an app menu that “you’d have
22 to go two screens in” to even see (Tr. 651:1-4 (Kare); see Tr. 964:5-14 (Lucente)), and the
23 Samsung devices allowed users put their most used icons on the home screen so that they rarely
24 needed to access the app menu (Tr. 967-968 (Lucente)), a fact that Kare did not consider (Tr.
25 652:1-653:8). No reasonable jury could find that Apple carried its burden of proof (Tr. 1232:17-
26
6
This factor addresses the design’s relative prominence within Samsung’s phones, not the
27 iPhone. Tr. 456:12-457:5 (Howarth). For that reason, much of Apple’s presentation was
irrelevant because it concerned the iPhone—not Samsung’s phones. See, e.g., Tr. 606:16-607:6
28 (Kare testifying that the D’305 was prominent within the iPhone and had “cultural prominence”).
-9- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 19 (Instruction 29)) to establish that the D’305 design affected the appearance of Samsung’s
2 phones as a whole.
3 On the other hand, “[i]f the design is a minor component of the product …, or if the
4 product has many other components unaffected by the design,” then factor two supports a finding
5 that the relevant AOM is a component. U.S. Br. 28; see Dkt. 3645 at 11. A reasonable jury could
6 only find for Samsung on these issues: The relevant phones are in evidence and reveal many
7 design and utilitarian features that are not affected by the patented design (including internal
8 componentry). See JX1011 (Captivate); JX1016 (Continuum); JX1025 (Droid Charge); JX1012
9 (Epic 4G); JX1020 (Gem); JX1026 (Indulge); see also DX4569. Indeed, it is undisputed that the
10 phones contain hundreds of components and features that are unaffected by the design. See, e.g.,
11 Tr. 629:17-632:1 (Kare: Samsung’s phones “are comprised of many parts”); Tr. 969:3-15
12 (Lucente: Samsung interface made up of “thousands of screens”); Tr. 973:18-19 (Lucente: “There
13 are thousands of components in a smartphone.”). Samsung advertising and marketing did not
14 focus on the D’305 design, but instead highlighted other features. DX4606; DX4607; DX4528.
15 And Apple’s own survey data shows that while consumers find many phone features to be
16 important to purchasing decisions, the D’305 design is not one of them. See DX572.027.
17 Factor 3. No reasonable jury could find that the D’305 design is not conceptually distinct
18 from a smartphone, because the two plainly “respond to different concepts” or ideas. Bush &
19 Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79, 82 (2d Cir. 1916) (Piano II). It is undisputed that a
20 GUI image is displayed only for part of the time that the smartphone is turned on (see Tr. 389:22-
21 390:12 (Joswiak); Tr. 650:21-651:13, Tr. 652:1-653:8 (Kare)), that a smartphone need not practice
22 the D’305 patent (e.g., JX5012 (Galaxy S II (AT&T)); JX5014 (Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch));
23 JX5015 (Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)); JX5013 (Galaxy S II (T-Mobile))), and that the D’305 design
24 can be displayed on non-phone devices such as Apple’s “iPod products” (Tr. 962:5-8 (Lucente)).
25 Display screens likewise occur in myriad devices—televisions, computers, tablets, and so on. Tr.
26 537:12-13 (Ball); 887:25-888:1 (D. Kim); 941:1-943:10 (Lucente). It is, again, undisputed that a
27 smartphone contains “thousands of components” (Tr. 973:18-19 (Lucente)), such as a battery and
28 a camera, which embody concepts that are distinct both from one another and from a smartphone
-10- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 (see Tr. 587:24-588:19 (Ball)). And it is undisputed that at the relevant times, a typical
2 smartphone practiced more than 200,000 patents, each representing a discrete invention. Tr.
3 973:23 (Lucente). No reasonable jury could find that the concept of a smartphone is
4 indistinguishable from the concept of the D’305 design.
5 Factor 4. It is undisputed that the display screen on which the D’305 design may appear is
6 “made by hand or machine” and “is an article [of manufacture] that is typically part of a device,”
7 and that the Samsung phones “are comprised of many parts” that are physically distinct from the
8 display screens. Tr. 629:17-632:1 (Kare); see Tr. 878:15-23 (J. Kim: Samsung phones contain
9 “hundreds” of components). The physically separated display screens are in evidence. JX5001
10 (Captivate); JX5005 (Continuum); JX5009 (Droid Charge); JX5002 (Epic 4G); JX5008 (Gem);
11 JX5010 (Indulge); see DX4569 (images of disassemblies). A display screen “can be physically
12 removed” from an iPhone once it is assembled (see Tr. 478:23 (Blevins)), and the same is true of
13 Samsung’s phones (see Tr. 623:15-624:11 (Kare)); Tr. 660:17-25 (Kare acknowledging that “the
14 display screen” may be “separated from the phone”)). Lucente took a Samsung phone apart and
15 replaced the display screen himself. Tr. 947:12-950:23. Nor is it disputed that “all of the parts”—
16 including the display screen—“are manufactured separately and assembled into a smartphone.”
17 Tr. 589:17-18 (Ball); Tr. 983:9-984:15 (Lucente: components are “manufactured separately”);
18 DX4568 (specification documents showing separate manufacture of display screens). The display
19 screens are both “sold to Samsung” before assembly and also sold separately for repairs. Tr.
20 983:24-984:17 (Lucente); Tr. 948:9-15 (Lucente bought a screen repair kit); DX4568.
21 Apple thus could not refute the evidence that the display screen “is manufactured
22 separately from the rest of [Samsung’s] product[s],” that the screen can be “physically separate[d]
23 from the product as a whole,” and that the screen “can be sold separately” from the phones (Tr.
24 1231:11-1232:1 (Instruction 29)). And Apple’s testimony as to whether the screen is easily
25 separated, regularly sold separately to consumers, or whether the display screen needs additional
26 components like a power supply to create the infringing image (e.g., Tr. 622-624 (Kare); Tr. 1017-
27 1018 (Lucente cross); Tr. 851-854 (Blackard cross); Tr. 896-897 (D. Kim cross); Tr. 1264-1265
28 (Apple closing argument)), is legally irrelevant. The Court’s test (Tr. 1231:11-1232:1) addresses
-11- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 only whether one “can” separate or sell the relevant AOMs—whether it is possible to do so. And
2 the Supreme Court made clear that a component of a device may be the relevant AOM “whether
3 sold separately or not.” Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 436. Under the correct test, no reasonable jury
4 could find that the display screens are not physically separable from Samsung’s phones.
5 In sum, applying the Court’s four factors, a reasonable jury would be compelled to
6 conclude that the D’305 design was applied only to a phone’s display screen. As shown (supra
7 Part I.A), the design is not applied to the numerous phone components on which the design does
8 not appear or the power supply and other components that may cause the design to be applied to
9 the display screen. See Hruby, 373 F.2d at 1001. And Apple never even attempted to show that
10 the D’305 design was applied to any phone component greater than the display screen itself.
11 2. Phones Found To Infringe Only The D’677 Patent

12 With respect to the four phones found to infringe only the D’677 patent (Galaxy S II
13 (AT&T), Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch), Galaxy S II (Skyrocket), and Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)), no
14 reasonable jury could find that the relevant AOM is anything but the glass front face. While the
15 jury correctly found that the D’677 design was not applied to Samsung’s entire phones (see supra,
16 at 2), the Court should grant JMOL that the relevant AOM is in fact the glass front face.
17 Factor 1. It is undisputed that the D’677 patent (JX1043) covers what its figures show in
18 solid lines: “a rectangular, round cornered, black front face.” Tr. 449:6-21 (Howarth); see Tr.
19 503:25-504:12 (Ball: “The solid lines indicate the protected or claimed design,” namely “a
20 rectangular surface” with “corners of a specific radius” and “a black top … that’s got some
21 reflectivity”); Tr. 562:12-14 (Ball agreeing that “the design claimed is just the front face”); Tr.
22 1228 (Instruction 26). Apple’s design expert Ball admitted that the patent “doesn’t claim the
23 back” of a device (Tr. 554:21) or “whatever is inside, whatever article … or device that this black
24 face is on top of” (Tr. 554:22-24). And Apple is precluded from seeking to recapture any of the
25 many alternative designs that it surrendered (including for an entire exterior of a device) in order
26 to receive the patent on a design for just a black front face. See Pac. Coast Marine, 739 F.3d at
27 701-02; see JX1064.178-.179, .193, .202.
28 Moreover, because a design patent protects only the claimed design, see Zahn, 617 F.2d at
-12- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 268, the scope of the design is not expanded by language in the patent that goes beyond what is
2 claimed in the drawings. Thus, the words “electronic device” and “article of manufacture” do not
3 alter the scope of the design under factor 1: As Ball admitted (Tr. 552:7-553:8), Apple’s attorneys
4 and designers selected those words, and did so before this Court adopted the four-factor test. And
5 that language was selected before the Supreme Court held that the term “article of manufacture” is
6 not a synonym for “an end product sold to a consumer.” Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 436; see JX1064
7 (D’677 file history); Tr. 1231 (Instruction 29: USPTO has not “determined the articles of
8 manufacture in this case”); Tr. 955:4-9 (Lucente: the phrase “electronic device” does not “tell you
9 anything about the scope of the claim”); Tr. 958:21-960:5 (similar); Tr. 955:16-956:13 (explaining
10 same by reference to patent titled “Electronic Device” but claiming only a design for a small
11 external slot (DX4561)).
12 Matter that is expressly disclaimed via broken lines likewise is not within the scope of the
13 claim. See Tr. 1228 (Instruction 26: “The broken lines in the D’677 patent constitute unclaimed
14 subject matter.”); JX1064, at 14, 178, 200 (D’677 file history). As Ball admitted, “the entire
15 phone isn’t shown in solid line[s], so the entire design of the phone isn’t claimed.” Tr. 504:21-22;
16 see Tr. 554:9-13 (Ball: broken lines “indicate[] areas that aren’t part of the claim”).
17 Factor 2. No reasonable jury could find that the D’677 design is a prominent feature
18 relative to the whole of a smartphone. The design does not “affect[] the appearance of the product
19 as a whole” (U.S. Br. 28; see Dkt. 3645 at 11), but appears only on “the front face of the Samsung
20 phone” (Tr. 958:4-5 (Lucente)). And even the effect on the front face is minor, since “simply
21 changing a small detail” can render a phone non-infringing. Tr. 970:13-971:2 (Lucente).
22 Conversely, it is again undisputed that Samsung’s phones contain hundreds of components
23 that are unaffected by the D’677 design. See supra, at 10; Tr. 629:17-632:1 (Kare); Tr. 973:18-19
24 (Lucente). Ball admitted that Samsung’s phones “have features, such as taking pictures, taking
25 video, [and] sending texts,” that Samsung “advertise[s] those features extensively,” and that
26 Apple’s “patents do not cover those prominent features.” Tr. 587:3-11. The phones are in
27 evidence (JX1031; JX1034; JX1035; JX1033), and they reveal many features and components
28 other than the D’677 design. Samsung’s advertising and marketing likewise highlighted design
-13- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 and utilitarian features other than the phones’ black front faces. See DX4606; DX4607; DX4528;
2 see also DX572.027 (Apple survey showing features most significant to purchasing decisions). No
3 reasonable jury could find the D’677 design to be prominent within Samsung’s phone as a whole.
4 Factor 3. No reasonable jury could fail to find that the concept of the D’677 design is
5 distinct from the concept of a smartphone. Just as the design for a book’s cover is conceptually
6 distinct from a book, and just as the design for a piano case is conceptually distinct from a piano,
7 see Piano II, 234 F. at 82, the concept of a smartphone’s front face is distinct from the concept of
8 the smartphone itself: the smartphone and the front face represent “very different ideas.” Tr.
9 972:21-973:12 (Lucente). While Ball presented a printer with a “flat front face” “control panel” as
10 purported evidence that a front face is conceptually identical to a smartphone (Tr. 537:12-16), this
11 example shows the opposite: A flat front face design like the D’677 design can be used in any
12 number of different devices (not just in a phone), because it represents its own discrete idea. And
13 Ball also admitted that a glass front face is conceptually different from a phone’s other
14 components and inventions, such as its battery and camera. Tr. 587:24-588:10. No reasonable
15 jury could find the D’677 design to be conceptually indistinct from a phone as a whole.
16 Factor 4. It is undisputed that Samsung’s glass front faces are manufactured separately
17 from the rest of a phone. Tr. 589:16-18 (Ball); see Tr. 983:9-17 (Lucente); DX4568
18 (manufacturing specification showing glass manufactured separately); Tr. 889-890 (D. Kim);
19 DX4520 (Samsung window glass spreadsheet); Tr. 894-895 (D. Kim regarding DX4520); Tr. 912-
20 913 (Sheppard regarding repair glass component); Tr. 1051-1052 (Wagner); see also Tr. 395:10-
21 12 (Joswiak discussing iPhone); Tr. 483:10-22 (Blevins discussing iPhone); DX4549 (Apple
22 agreement with Dow Corning for front glass). It is also undisputed that the glass front faces can
23 be physically separated from the phones, including for repair. Tr. 540:11-13, 588:21-25 (Ball); Tr.
24 912-913 (Sheppard regarding repair process for Samsung phones); Tr. 460:20-461:13 (Howarth
25 agreeing that “glass front faces can be removed from [Samsung’s] phones”); see also Tr. 395:21-
26 23 (Joswiak agreeing that iPhone’s glass front face “can … be physically separated from the
27 product as a whole,” “for a repair”); Tr. 475:19-24 (Blevins; similar). The separated components,
28 including front glass, are in evidence (JX5012; JX5014; JX5015; JX5013), as are photographs of
-14- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 disassemblies (DX4569) and of a teardown that Apple performed on a Samsung phone (DX2519).
2 The glass front faces can be sold separately, including for repairs and replacement. Tr. 589:19-25
3 (Ball); Tr. 466:14-16 (Howarth agreeing that “a lot of people break the glass on their phones and
4 get that replaced”); Tr. 883:16-884:4 (J. Kim) (Samsung sells replacement glass faces); Tr.
5 896:24-898:10 (D. Kim; similar); Tr. 912:8-913:14 (Sheppard; similar); Tr. 983:18-984:4
6 (Lucente; similar); DX4516 (compilation of Samsung repair parts, including glass faces, for sale
7 online); Tr. 1051:1-1052:15 (Wagner); see also Tr. 484:17-485:2 (Blevins admitting iPhone glass
8 is sold separately for replacement). On these undisputed facts, no reasonable jury could find that
9 the glass front face on which the D’677 design appears is not a physically distinct AOM from the
10 phone as a whole.
11 As with the D’305 patent (see supra, at 11-12), Apple’s evidence that Samsung did not
12 typically sell the glass face component to consumers and that the glass needs something behind it
13 to create the consistent black color is legally irrelevant. See, e.g., Tr. 851-854 (Blackard cross);
14 Tr. 883-884 (J. Kim cross); Tr. 896-897 (D. Kim cross); Tr. 1013-1014 (Lucente cross); Tr. 1264
15 (Apple closing argument). Those issues are irrelevant to this factor as described by the Court (Tr.
16 1231:11-1232:1), and any rule that the component must be regularly sold separately would
17 conflict with the Supreme Court’s holding that a component may be the relevant AOM “whether
18 sold separately or not.” Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 436.

19 Although the jury must have found (see supra, at 2) that the D’677 patent was applied to
20 the display assemblies (not the glass front faces alone), the D’677 patent covers only a design for a
21 front face with a particular shape and color. While the color may be created by juxtaposition with
22 display components that sit behind the glass face, those components are merely the means through
23 which the color is applied to the front face of the phone. As a matter of law, the design is not
24 applied to those components, but rather is applied by them to the front face. See Hruby, 373 F.2d
25 at 1001. Thus, no reasonable jury could have found that the D’677 design was applied to any
26 portion of Samsung’ phones beyond the glass front faces.

27 3. Phones Found To Infringe The D’305 And D’677 Patents
28 With respect to the four phones found to infringe both the D’305 and the D’677 (Fascinate,
-15- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Galaxy S Showcase, Infuse 4G, and Mesmerize), no reasonable jury could find that the designs
2 were applied to any AOM other than the display screen and the glass front face, respectively, for
3 the reasons above.
4 4. Phones Found To Infringe The D’305, D’677, And D’087 Patents

5 With respect to the two phones found to infringe all three of Apple’s design patents
6 (Galaxy S 4G and Vibrant), no reasonable jury could find that the D’305 and D’677 designs were
7 applied to any AOM other than the display screen and glass front face, respectively, for the same
8 reasons. As to the D’087 patent, no reasonable jury could find that the design was applied to any
9 AOM other than the glass front face plus bezel.
10 Factor 1. It is undisputed that the D’087 patent (JX1041) claims a design for a “flat front
11 face and [a] bezel.” Tr. 507:2-12 (Ball); see Tr. 562:12-21 (Ball; similar); Tr. 953:6-9 (Lucente;
12 similar). Howarth admitted that when he put the Galaxy S 4G’s glass front face together with its
13 corresponding bezel, the effect was to create a design that is “really similar” to (i.e., a “colorable
14 imitation” of, 35 U.S.C. § 289) the D’087 design. Tr. 453:13-455:8. The D’087 patent “doesn’t
15 … claim the internal component[s]” of a phone. Tr. 953:23-954:2 (Lucente); see Tr. 507:13-15
16 (Ball: “[t]he actual claim [of the D’087] doesn’t” “cover an entire phone”). The claimed design,
17 moreover, does not include either the words in the patent or the broken lines in its figures. See
18 supra, at 6; Zahn, 617 F.2d at 268. The description, however, confirms that the claim does not
19 extend to anything in broken lines. JX1041, at 4; Tr. 1229 (Instruction 26). And prosecution
20 history estoppel again bars Apple from recapturing the multiple different designs that it
21 surrendered in order to secure the D’087 patent on the front face and bezel, including designs for
22 an entire exterior of a device. Pac. Coast Marine, 739 F.3d at 701-02; see JX1062, at 129, 165.
23 Factor 2. No reasonable jury could find that the D’087 design is relatively prominent
24 within Samsung’s phones in the sense that it “affects the appearance of the product as a whole”
25 (U.S. Br. 28; see Dkt. 3645, at 11). To the contrary, the design affects the appearance of only “the
26 front face and the bezel of the Samsung phones that infringe the D’087 patent” (Tr. 954:5-6
27 (Lucente)), and there again is no dispute that the phones (JX1019; JX1010) contain thousands of
28 other components whose appearance is unaffected by the D’087 design (see supra, at 10).
-16- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Factor 3. Just as the D’677 front face design is conceptually distinct from a smartphone in
2 that a front face may be used in other products (see supra, at 14), the same is true of the D’087
3 front face and bezel design. As Howarth explained, the idea of a bezel is traditionally associated
4 with a clock or watch face, where the bezel acts to protect a piece of glass from damage. Tr.
5 431:18-24. Given that admission, there can be no dispute that the concept of a front face and bezel
6 is distinct from the concept a phone: the two relate to distinct ideas. And, again, it is also
7 undisputed that Samsung’s smartphones contain other components, such as the battery and
8 camera, that are conceptually distinct from Apple’s design. Tr. 587:24-588:10 (Ball). No
9 reasonable jury could find that the D’087 design is conceptually indistinguishable from Samsung’s
10 smartphones.
11 Factor 4. Finally, no reasonable jury could conclude that the glass front face and bezel are
12 not physically separable components of Samsung’s smartphones. There is no dispute that those
13 parts are manufactured separately from the rest of the product before it is assembled. Tr. 589:17-
14 18 (Ball: “all of the parts are manufactured separately and assembled into a smartphone”); Tr.
15 984:6-8 (Lucente: bezel was separately manufactured and sold to Samsung); DX4568
16 (manufacturing specification documents showing glass front face and bezel manufactured
17 separately); see also Tr. 485:3-8 (Blevins: iPhone bezel is “separately manufactured”). Nor is
18 there a dispute that the front face and bezel can be physically separated from the phones. See Tr.
19 461:10-13 (Howarth admitting that “it’s possible to disassemble” a Samsung phone); Tr. 540:11-
20 13 (Ball acknowledging that the front face and bezel can be physically separated from a Samsung
21 phone); Tr. 588:11-24 (Ball; similar); JX5007, JX5000 (disassembled components); DX4569
22 (photos of disassemblies); DX2519 (Apple teardown of Vibrant); see also Tr. 477:20-478:4
23 (Blevins: bezel can be physically separated from the iPhone); Tr. 485:22-486:3 (Blevins: bezel is
24 a “somewhat commonly replaced” part of an iPhone). And it is undisputed that the front face and
25 bezel can be sold separately. See, e.g., Tr. 984:6-8 (Lucente); see also Tr. 485:22-486:3 (Blevins
26 discussing iPhone); DX4516 (compilation of repair parts for sale online).

27 Apple’s assertions that the front face and bezel are not sold directly to consumers, rather
28 than on the wholesale level and for repairs, see, e.g., Tr. 851:4-854:6 (Blackard cross); Tr. 883:14-
-17- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 884:3 (J. Kim cross); Tr. 896:19-897:5 (D. Kim cross); Tr. 1013-1014 (Lucente cross); Tr. 1264
2 (Apple closing argument), thus cannot provide a legally sufficient basis to conclude that the D’087
3 patent is applied to Samsung’s entire phones. Factor four asks only whether it is possible to
4 separate and to sell the components separately (Tr. 1231:11-1232:1), and (again) a product
5 component may be the relevant AOM “whether sold separately or not,” Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at
6 436.
7 In sum, under the four-factor test, a reasonable jury would be compelled to conclude that
8 the D’087 design was applied only to the glass front faces and bezels of Samsung’s phones.
9 C. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Under The Correct Two-Factor Test That
The Designs Were Applied To Any Article Of Manufacture Other Than Those
10 That Samsung Identified
11 As Samsung has previously explained (e.g., Dkt. 3592-2, at 2-4; Dkt. 3723, at 3-5; Tr.
12 1351:15-18, 1352:21-23), determination of the relevant AOM under § 289 requires consideration
13 only of the scope of the design and the physical nature of the product. Factors 2 and 3 of the
14 Court’s test have no basis in the statute. Under the correct two-factor test, and based on the
15 evidence above, no reasonable jury could conclude that the relevant AOMs are anything other
16 than the components that Samsung has identified. The Court should grant JMOL to Samsung.
17 II. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE PERCENTAGES OF ITS ENTIRE-

PHONE PROFITS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS COMPONENT AOMS
18
19 After identifying the relevant AOMs, the next step is to determine the amount of total
20 profit from those AOMs. See Samsung, 137 S. Ct. at 434. It was undisputed at trial that, if the
21 relevant AOMs are components of Samsung’s phones, then the profit from each component may
22 be reliably determined by multiplying Samsung’s profit from the entire phone by the cost of the
23 relevant component taken as a percentage of Samsung’s entire-phone material cost. See Tr. 826:9-
24 18 (Davis); 1121:4-17 (Wagner). Therefore, on the undisputed record here, the fact-finder’s task
25 upon determining that the relevant AOMs were components of Samsung’s phones was to ascertain
26 the percentages of entire-phone profit that are attributable to those component AOMs.
27 No reasonable jury could reject the undisputed evidence on this issue. Samsung presented
28 evidence of each relevant component’s cost and the total material cost of each relevant phone,
-18- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 from which Wagner calculated each relevant component’s cost percentage—and, thus, the relevant
2 profit percentage. DX 4568 (Samsung components); Tr. 1058:5-1059:12 (Wagner testifying to
3 window glass cost); Tr. 894:14-895:11 (D. Kim confirming window glass data); Tr. 913:15-17
4 (Sheppard testifying that window glass cost is “$3 to $5”); Tr. 1054:6-20 (Wagner testifying to
5 bezel cost); Tr. 1053:7-16 (Wagner testifying to display assembly cost); DX4520 (Samsung’s
6 window glass cost); DX4509 (Samsung’s costed bill of materials); Tr. 1123:21-1124:9 (Wagner
7 testifying to cost percentages); DX4536.002-.004 (cost percentages). Apple did not contest the
8 reliability of the underlying data, Tr. 787:10-788:13 (Davis), and presented no rebuttal testimony
9 or criticism of Wagner’s profit-percentage calculations. A reasonable jury thus would have no
10 basis to reject these percentages.
11 III. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIBLE

OPERATING EXPENSES
12
13 Regardless of whether the relevant AOMs are Samsung’s entire phones or components
14 thereof, the jury was required to calculate Samsung’s profit on the entire phones in order to
15 determine the profit from the relevant AOMs. To determine entire-phone profit, deductible
16 expenses are subtracted from revenues. Here, the parties disputed at trial whether certain
17 operating expenses (sales, marketing, general and administrative (G&A), and research and
18 development (R&D) costs) are deductible. Samsung is entitled to JMOL that they are.7
19 A. Reasonably Allocated Operating Expenses Are Deductible Under § 289 As A
Matter Of Law
20
21 It is well established that operating expenses (sometimes referred to as overhead, or fixed
22 7
Although in prior trials Samsung bore the burden of proving its expenses, the Supreme
Court’s decision and this Court’s subsequent decisions on remand require revisiting the issue. See
23 Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada), 803 F.3d 620, 628 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (intervening
change in law triggers exception to law of the case doctrine). As the Court has ruled, Apple bears
24 the burden to “identify[] the relevant article of manufacture for the purpose of § 289 and [to]
prove[e] the defendant’s total profit on [the relevant] article.” Dkt. 3530, at 24. The identification
25 of the relevant costs is an aspect of determining the defendant’s total profit, and the burden on
each issue should accordingly lie with the same party—here, Apple. Moreover, the law is clear
26 that in general “[t]he burden of proving damages falls on the patentee,” Lucent, 580 F.3d at 1324,
and the legislative history of § 289 shows Congress’s intent that the patentee may only recover
27 “the profit actually made on the infringing article if he can prove that profit.” H.R. Rep. No. 49-
1966, at 3 (emphasis added). In any case, for the reasons set forth in text, Samsung is entitled to
28 JMOL on the deduction of costs regardless of who bore the burden.
-19- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 costs) should be deducted from revenues to determine “total profit” under § 289 so long as they
2 are “attributable” to the sales at issue. Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1447
3 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment that included such deductions in Nike,
4 id., and other courts have long applied the same basic rule. For example, in Schnadig Corp. v.
5 Gaines Manufacturing Co., 620 F.2d 1166 (6th Cir. 1980), the Sixth Circuit allowed a deduction
6 of two-thirds of the defendant’s fixed costs because they were reasonably “allocable to the
7 infringing production.” Id. at 1175. More recently in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Wing Shing
8 Products (BVI) Ltd., 311 B.R. 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the court ruled that “portions of fixed costs
9 are deductible in calculating profit to the extent those portions can be attributed to the infringing
10 product.” Id. at 401. The Federal Circuit affirmed, finding no legal error in such a deduction. 153
11 F. App’x 703 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also, e.g., Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp.
12 476, 497-98 (D. Minn. 1980) (deducting 60% of fixed costs that were reasonably allocated to
13 infringing product). In the similar context of copyright, courts recognize that the party seeking to
14 prove a deduction need only offer a “reasonably acceptable formula,” Frank Music Corp. v.
15 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505, 516 (9th Cir. 1985)—in other words, a “fair, accurate,
16 and practical method of allocating the implicated overhead to the infringement,” Hamil Am. Inc. v.
17 GFI, 193 F.3d 92, 105 (2d Cir. 1999) (cited in Dkt. 2947, at 17).
18 Courts thus recognize that a rule permitting deduction only of variable costs, and not of
19 any operating expenses and fixed costs, would be “economically unrealistic” and contrary to
20 common sense. Bergstrom, 496 F. Supp. 476 at 498. Indeed, “[t]he basic truth [is] that no article
21 of manufacture can be profitable in a real sense if it cannot bear its proportionate share of the fixed
22 costs.” Schnadig, 620 F.2d at 1172 (citing Tremaine v. Hitchcock & Co., 90 U.S. 518, 529
23 (1874)); accord Sunbeam, 311 B.R. at 401 (rejecting “dubious” argument that defendant “should
24 not be allowed to deduct any portion of a fixed cost”); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 2012 WL
25 4017808, *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2012) (in copyright case, it would be “certainly unjust [to]
26 giv[e] the plaintiffs everything” by refusing to deduct any operating expenses). Thus, the correct
27 rule of law is that in calculating “total profit” under § 289, operating expenses should be deducted
28 from revenues so long as they are reasonably allocable to the defendant’s infringing sales.
-20- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 B. No Reasonable Jury Could Find That Samsung’s Expenses Were Not

Reasonably Allocated To The Infringing Phones
2
3 Under this settled standard, Samsung is entitled to JMOL because no reasonable jury could
4 have failed to find that its operating expenses were reasonably allocable to the infringing sales.
5 First, Samsung indisputably incurred some $696 million in operating expenses (sales,
6 marketing, G&A, R&D) in connection with the sale of the infringing products. See Tr. 735:4-11,
7 736:20-22, 738:6-8 (Davis admissions); see Tr. 906:10-907:12 (Sheppard); Tr. 1031:11-24
8 (Wagner); Tr. 1046:17-1047:19 (Wagner); Tr. 1152:8-16 (Wagner); Tr. 1155:13-25 (Wagner). Of
9 these expenses, roughly 44% related to sales and marketing and roughly 32% related to R&D, Tr.
10 770:16-771:6 (Davis admissions), leaving about 24% related to G&A. There was no dispute about
11 any of this at trial, and no contrary evidence was introduced.
12 Second, the data underlying these calculations (DX676) was indisputably reliable. This
13 data was entered into SAP database software on an hourly basis and was subject to both internal
14 Samsung checks and routine outside audits. Tr. 901:20-902:12, 911:2-20 (Sheppard). Apple did
15 not dispute that Samsung’s data was reliable and did not introduce any contrary evidence. In fact,
16 Davis expressly admitted that she had “no information that would suggest that anybody’s been
17 monkeying around” with the data. Tr. 787:10-788:13.
18 Third, no reasonable jury could conclude that these operating expenses were not
19 reasonably allocable to Samsung’s infringing phones. The undisputed evidence showed that
20 Samsung allocated these costs to its products on a monthly basis (Tr. 783:5-8 (Davis); 1037:13-
21 1038:4 (Wagner)) and in the ordinary course of business (Tr. 907:23-908:16 (Sheppard)).
22 Samsung used an allocation methodology that is such a “common practice” among accountants
23 that it is part of the accounting curriculum; indeed, it is the only way that a company like Samsung
24 could calculate its profits on a per-product basis (Tr. 908:17-909:5 (Sheppard)). Samsung’s
25 allocation methodology is “the most common allocation methodology in business” (Tr. 1045:2-22
26 (Wagner)). Other Samsung entities allocate their expenses in the same way (Tr. 938:8-11
27 (Sheppard)), as do most major, multi-product-line companies (Tr. 1037:13-1038:1 (Wagner); see
28 also 782:12-783:1 (Davis)).
-21- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Moreover, the evidence was unequivocal that Samsung’s operating expenses have a “clear
2 relationship” to Samsung’s profits (Tr. 1039:22 (Wagner); see Tr. 1035:1): The operating
3 expenditures are “necessary to create and sell the product[s]” (Tr. 907:20-22 (Sheppard)), and
4 without (for example) Samsung’s marketing and sales activities its “phones wouldn’t have been
5 sold,” Tr. 1034:23-1035:9 (Wagner; marketing); see Tr. 1038:16-1040:12 (Wagner; similar as to
6 sales expenses). Similarly, Samsung “incurred” its R&D costs “during the period [when] the
7 [relevant] phones [were] being sold,” and therefore “expensed” them during that period—as is
8 “required by the accounting standards” to give a “reasonable estimate” of Samsung’s R&D costs
9 for the phones at issue. Tr. 1040:24-1043:10 (Wagner); see Tr. 1044:6-20 (Wagner; similar for
10 G&A expenses). The evidence thus overwhelmingly shows that Samsung’s relevant operating
11 expenses are deductible because there is a reasonable (and indeed necessary) “connection”
12 between the expenses and Samsung’s sales. See Tr. 1033:13-1034:3, 1176:4-11 (Wagner).
13 Remarkably, none of this was disputed at trial as an evidentiary matter. Apple did not
14 dispute that Samsung’s allocation methodology was reasonable and reliable—neither Davis nor
15 any other witness did so, and indeed Apple could not have done so because it uses the same
16 methodology itself. DX4554; Tr. 776:23-777:2 (Davis); 1045:2-22 (Wagner). Moreover, Davis
17 admitted that Samsung’s data was reliable, Tr. 787:10-788:13, and further admitted that
18 Samsung’s expenses for marketing, sales, and R&D were all related to the sales of Samsung’s
19 phones because it is not possible to produce or sell a smartphone without such costs, Tr. 770:1-15.
20 Apple thus did not contest the deductibility of Samsung’s expenses as a factual matter at all.
21 Instead, Apple sought to confuse the jury as to the law. This Court instructed the jury that
22 costs other than the costs of goods “may be included as deductible expenses if they are directly
23 attributable to the sale or manufacture of the infringing products resulting in a nexus between the
24 infringing products and the expenses.” Tr. 1233:11-15 (emphasis added). Ms. Davis admitted
25 that there need only be “some relationship between the expense and the revenue” for the “nexus”
26 requirement to be met, Tr. 769:20-25, and thus that requirement permits the deduction of allocated
27 costs—in fact, Davis herself deducted some fixed costs that “ha[d] to be allocated” to determine
28 profits. Tr. 777:6-17. But rather than acknowledge that operating expenses are deductible if they
-22- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 have a “nexus” to the infringing products, Apple leaned on the words “directly attributable” (see,
2 e.g., Tr. 734:20-735:15 (Davis)) and urged the jury in closing arguments to disallow Samsung’s
3 operating expenses simply because they were allocated, rather than product specific, costs. Tr.
4 1268:18-1269:16 (Apple closing argument). That is wrong as a matter of law because reasonably
5 allocable expenses must be deducted, as shown above. And on this motion, the Court must “apply
6 the law as it should be,” even if the jury instructions said (or were characterized by Apple to say)
7 something different. Fisher, 558 F.3d at 1074.8
8 At both prior trials, the juries deducted at least portions of Samsung’s operating expenses.
9 See Dkt. 1930 (2012 verdict deducting 60% of Samsung’s related operating expenses); Dkt. 2822
10 (2013 verdict deducting 38.6% of Samsung’s related operating expenses)). No reasonable jury
11 could have parted ways with both prior juries to find that none of Samsung’s operating expenses
12 were deductible. Apple did not dispute that Samsung’s operating-expense allocation was
13 reasonable, and its claim that such expenses are not deductible as a legal matter is simply wrong.
14 The Court should rule that Samsung’s operating expenses are deductible as a matter of law.
15 IV. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE AMOUNT OF DESIGN-PATENT

DAMAGES OR AT MINIMUM TO REMITTITUR OR A NEW TRIAL
16
A. The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence To Support The Damages Verdict
17
18 As set forth above, Samsung is entitled to JMOL on each of the issues subsidiary to the
19 ultimate calculation of its “total profit” under § 289: a reasonable jury would be constrained to
20 adopt Samsung’s identification of the relevant component AOMs (the glass front face (D’677);
21 glass front face with bezel (D’087); and display screen (D’305)), and to deduct Samsung’s
22 operating expenses. Based on those findings, which the trial record compels, the Court should
23 grant JMOL that Samsung’s “total profit” under § 289 is $28,085,061. Wagner Dec. ¶ 23;
24 DX4537.
25 In the alternative, if the Court grants JMOL on some issues but not others, the Court
26 should “work[] the math backwards” and enter JMOL as to the total amount of damages in the
27 Notably, Davis admitted that “directly attributable” is not a term used in generally accepted
8
accounting principles and she had not previously applied that standard. Tr. 768:24-769:13; 780:8-
28 14.
-23- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 amount yielded by the following flowcharts. Lucent, 580 F.3d at 1336-38. The citations are to the
2 Wagner Declaration, submitted herewith, which details the calculations.9
3 D’305 AOM D’677 AOM D’087 AOM Operating Expenses Total Profit
4 $28,085,061 (¶23)
Deductible
(Samsung's Position)
5 Glass Front Face
With Bezel
Not
6 $110,773,605 (¶25)
Deductible
Glass Front
7 Face
Deductible $48,610,016 (¶24)
8 Entire Phone
Not
9 $156,166,766 (¶26)
Deductible
Display
10 Screen
Deductible $100,740,919 (¶23)
Glass Front Face
11
With Bezel
Not
$286,114,916 (¶25)
12 Deductible
Display
Assembly
13 Deductible $121,223,193 (¶24)
14 Entire Phone
Not
$332,036,436 (¶26)
15 Deductible
16 D’305 AOM D’677 AOM Operating Expenses Total Profit

17
Deductible $80,206,471 (¶23)
18
Glass Front Face
19 Not Deductible $358,197,120 (¶25)
20 Entire Phone
Deductible $152,722,530 (¶23)
21
Display Assembly
22 $533,316,607
Not Deductible
(Jury's Verdict)
23
24 B. The Court Should At Minimum Grant A New Trial And/Or Remittitur

25 If the Court does not grant JMOL, it should at minimum order a new trial under Fed. R.
26 If the D’305 design were applied to Samsung’s entire phones, no additional award would be
9
permitted for infringement of the D’087 patent (since all phones that infringed the D’087 patent
27 also infringed the D’305 patent). Conversely, if the D’087 design were applied to Samsung’s
entire phones, then no additional award based on the D’305 patent would be permitted for units
28 found to infringe the D’087 patent. See supra, at 2.
-24- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 Civ. P. 59. Such relief is warranted where (inter alia) “‘the verdict is against the weight of the
2 evidence, [or] the damages are excessive,’” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir.
3 2007), or where necessary to prevent a “miscarriage of justice,” Rattray v. City of National City,
4 51 F.3d 793, 800 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court “is not required to view the trial evidence in the light
5 most favorable to the verdict,” and “can weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the
6 witnesses.” Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd, 762 F.3d 829, 842 (9th Cir.
7 2014). A new trial may be conditioned on remittitur of damages to the maximum amount
8 sustainable by the evidence. See Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG, 765 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2014).
9 Here, even if the $533 million design-patent verdict were supported by substantial
10 evidence (it is not), the award is excessive and against the weight of the evidence for the reasons
11 above. The weight of the evidence is against the jury’s findings regarding the identities of the
12 relevant AOMs. And even accepting those findings arguendo, the jury’s irrational failure to
13 deduct any of Samsung’s operating expenses inflated the amount of the damages award by some
14 $380.6 million—accounting for more than 71% of the verdict (see Wagner Decl. ¶ 22). This is a
15 textbook case of excessive damages, and the Court should therefore grant a new trial. See, e.g.,
16 Molski, 481 F.3d at 732 (reversing denial of new trial where “undisputed testimony” showed that
17 verdict “was against the clear weight of the evidence”); Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages,
18 Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 33 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing denial of new trial where damages award was
19 “out of line with economic reality”); Wordtech Sys., Inc v. Integrated Networks Sols., Inc., 609
20 F.3d 1308, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversing denial of new trial in absence of a “plausible
21 explanation[] for the verdict”). The new trial may be conditioned on remittitur to the maximum
22 amount supported by the evidence. See Part IV.A, supra.
23 CONCLUSION
24 The Court should grant the motion and enter JMOL as set forth above. In the alternative,
25 the Court should order a new trial, which may be conditioned upon an appropriate remittitur.
26
27
28
-25- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
1 DATED: June 7, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

SULLIVAN, LLP
3
4
By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
5 John B. Quinn
Kathleen M. Sullivan
6 William C. Price
Michael T. Zeller
7 Kevin P.B. Johnson
8
9 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,

LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
10 INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-26- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

AND FOR
EXHIBIT A
1
J.D., Loyola University School

MICHAEL J. WAGNER of Law at Los Angeles (1975)
Managing Director
M.B.A., University of California
(updated as of May 18, 20125 at Los Angeles (1971)
B.S. Engineering,
University of Santa Clara
(1969)
Michael Wagner, a Senior Advisor with LitiNomics, has testified 142 times at trial, 37 times in
arbitration, and 368 times in deposition. He has testified at trial in Federal courts in 19 different
states and in State court in 10 different States. He has been deposed in cases pending in 33
states. The most frequent subject matters of his expert testimony are the calculation of commercial
damages or business value. He has also testified a number of times on the subject of alter ego.
EXPERIENCE
2007-Present Senior Advisor beginning 2018; Managing Director 2007-2017, LitiNomics, Inc.
2004–2007 Senior Advisor, CRA International (successor to InteCap, Inc.)
1999–2004 Managing Director, InteCap, Inc.
1999 Senior Vice President, PHB Hagler Bailly, Inc. (successor to Putnam, Hayes &
Bartlett, Inc.)
1993–1999 Managing Director, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc. (successor to Dickenson,
O’Brien & Associates)
1985–1992 Partner, Price Waterhouse
Senior Manager, 1983–1985
Manager, 1979–1980
Consultant, 1976–1979
1981–1983 Principal, Dickenson, O’Brien & Associates
Associate, 1980–1981
1975–1976 Associate Cost Engineer, Fluor Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 2
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (CURRENT)

Certified Public Accountant, State of California - # 30327 (Active status from July 1980 through April
2014, Inactive status beginning May 2014)
Member, State Bar of California - # 67911 (Active status from November 1975 to April 1991 and
January 1995 to December 2016, Inactive status beginning January 2017)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (PAST)

Member, Sedona Conference Patent Damages and Remedies Working Group (2011 –
2016)
Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants - # 1079895
Certified in Financial Forensics - # 23 (2008 – 2014)

Inaugural CFF Credential Committee (2008 – 2011)
AICPA Litigation Services Committee (1993–1995)
AICPA Business Valuation Standards Task Force (1994–1995)
AICPA and IBA combined Conference Steering Committee (1995)
AICPA Litigation Services Conference Steering Committee (1990 – 1995)
AICPA MAS Practice Standards and Administration Subcommittee (1988–1990)
AICPA Auditing Standards Board Litigation Services Task Force (1989)
Co-Editor, CPA Expert (1994–1996)
Panel of Experts, Dunn on Damages
Member, American Bar Association
Member, State Bar of California (inactive status 1991–1995)
Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants

Litigation Services Committee (1985–1990), Chairman (1987–1989)
Government Relations Committee (1989–1990)
Contingent Fee Task Force (1988–1990)
Member, Oregon Society of Certified Public Accountants
Litigation Services Committee (1990–1994)
Certified Public Accountant, States of Hawaii (1980–1983), Washington (1990–1994), Oregon

(1990–1994)
Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association
Dispute Resolution Services, Sub-chair of Administration Committee (1987–1989)
NASD Board of Arbitrators
***Underlined party was my client.

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 3
Hastings College of Advocacy, Faculty Expert
NITA, Faculty Member
Certified Management Consultant
American Arbitration Association’s Panel of Arbitrators
Arbitration Services of Portland, Inc.
Academy of Experts
PUBLICATIONS
“When Is It Appropriate To Have A Reasonable Royalty Higher Than The Infringer’s Profits?” Dunn
on Damages, Issue 9, Winter 2012.
“Book of Wisdom – Is it Fact or Fiction”, Dunn on Damages – The Economic Damages Report for
Litigators, Issue 3, Summer 2011
"A Primer on Patent Damages", Dunn on Damages - The Economic Damages Report for Litigators
and Experts, Issue 2, Spring 2011.
"The 25% Rule Lives On", IP Law 360, September 8, 2010 (co-authored with John Jarosz and Carla
Mulhern)
“Response to One Man’s Opinion, comments on ‘A New Look at Expected Cash Flows and Present
Value Discounts’,” CPA Expert, spring 2004 (co-authored with Michael Crain and Bonnie Goldsmith)
“Differences between Economic Damages Analysis and Business Valuation,” Chapter 13 in the
Handbook of Business Valuation and Intellectual Property Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 2004 (co-
authored with Michael Dunbar)
th rd nd st
Litigation Services Handbook (4 Edition – 2007, 3 Edition – 2001, 2 Edition – 1995, 1 Edition –
1990), John Wiley & Sons, (co-edited with Peter B. Frank and Roman L. Weil).
Chapters Co-Authored
4th Edition:
Chapter 1 “The Role of the Financial Expert in Litigation Services”
Chapter 8 “Ex Ante versus Ex Post Damages Calculations”

Chapter 22 “Patent Infringement Damages”
Chapter 29 “Alter Ego”

rd
3 Edition:
Chapter 1 “The Role of the Financial Expert in Litigation Services”
Chapter 5A “Ex Ante versus Ex Post Damages Calculations” (2003 Supplement)
Chapter 38 “Alter Ego”

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 4
nd
2 Edition:
Chapter 1 “The Role of the CPA in Litigation Services”
Chapter10 “Alter Ego”
Chapter 34 "Patent Infringement Damages”

st
1 Edition:
Chapter 1 “The Role of the CPA in Litigation Services”
Chapter 31 “Securities Act Violations: Computation of Damages”
“Economic Damages: Use and Abuse of Business Valuation Concepts,” Chapter 14 in The
Handbook of Advanced Business Valuation, McGraw-Hill, 1999 (co-authored with John Phillips).
“Tax Effects of Discount Rates in Taxable Damage Awards,” CPA Expert, winter 1999 (co-authored
with Greg Hallman).
“Experience Enhances Objectivity of Damage Estimates,” CPA Expert, winter 1997.
“Communicating in Litigation Services: Reports, A Nonauthoritative Guide,” AICPA Consulting

Services Practice Aid No. 96-3, 1996 (co-authored with Everett P. Harry III). Partially reprinted in
th
Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits, Volume 2, (5 Edition) by Robert L. Dunn.
“Court Expands Lost Profits Damages From Patent Infringement,” CPA Expert, summer 1996 (co-
authored with Bruce L. McFarlane).
“The Implications of Changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for CPA-Expert Witnesses,”
The CPA Management Consultant Newsletter of the AICPA Management Consultant Division,
spring 1994 (co-authored with Bruce L. McFarlane).
“The Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedures That Apply to Expert Witnesses,” CPA Litigation
Services Counselor, Volume 1994, Issues 2 & 3. Harcourt Brace (February and March 1994).
“What Juries Look for in CPAs,” Journal of Accountancy (November 1993).
“Litigation Services,” AICPA MAS Technical Consulting Practice Aid, No. 7 1986 reprinted and
updated as “Providing Litigation Services” AICPA Consulting Services Practice AID 93-4 (co-
authored with Peter B. Frank) (1993).
“Valuation of Intangible Assets,” Financial Valuation: Businesses and Business Interests, Warren
Gorham Lamont, 1993 Supplement (co-authored with Lee B. Shepard).
“Opportunities in Litigation Services,” Journal of Accountancy, (June 1992) (co-authored with Bruce
L. McFarlane).
“Economic Damages in Patent Infringement Cases,” Patent Litigation 1991, Vol. II, Practicing Law
Institute, Course Handbook Series No. 321 (co-authored with Peter B. Frank and Jeffrey H. Kinrich).
“Using CPAs In Your Law Practice,” Seattle-King County Bar Bulletin, February 1991 (co-authored
with Bruce L. McFarlane). Reprinted in The Oregon Certified Public Accountant, September 1991,
as “The Role of the CPA in Commercial Litigation.”

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 5
“The Accountant’s Role in the Process of Damage Measurement,” The Practical Accountant (July
1990).
“How do you Measure Damages? Lost Income or Lost Cash Flow?” Journal of Accountancy
(February 1990).
“Expert Problems,” ABA Litigation Journal, Volume 15, No. 2 (Winter 1989).
“How to Control Your Expert,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers Report, Volume X, No. 2
(February 1988).
“Computing Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalties,” American Intellectual Property Law Association
Quarterly Journal, Volume 15, No. 4 1987 (co-authored with Peter B. Frank).
“Breach of Duty by Directors, Officers and Principal Shareholders: Shareholder Derivative Actions,”
Chapter 63, Commercial Damages, Matthew Bender (1986).
“Computers Revolutionize Damage Claim Analysis,” The Recorder (June 7, 1984).

“Analyzing Damage Claims—Discounted Cash Flow Method,” The National Law Journal
(August 29, 1983).
“The Litigator’s Ultimate Weapon,” Los Angeles Lawyer (May/June 1983) (co-authored with Peter B.
Frank and Jeffrey H. Kinrich).
Committee Publications
“Commentary on Patent Damages and Remedies” The Sedona Conference, June 2014 Public
Comment Version, Contributing Editor.
“Communicating Understandings in Litigation Services: Engagement Letters,” AICPA Consulting

Services Practice Aid 95-2 (1995).
Statement on Standards for Consulting Services No. 1, AICPA (October 1991).
Selected Speeches
“Issues and Strategies Based on Recent Damagers Decisions” panelist, March 5, 2018, University
of Arizona Inaugural IP Conference, Tucson, Arizona
“IP Remedies Roundtable and Workshop”, panelist, March 20, 2017, USC Gould School of Law
2017 Intellectual Property Institute, Santa Monica, California
“Commentary on Patent Damages and Remedies”, panelist, November 6, 2014, The Sedona
Conference All Voices Meeting, New Orleans
“The Use of Consumer Surveys in Patent Cases for Damage Apportionment”, LES 2012 Winter
Meeting, March 13, 2012, Anaheim, CA
“Evolving IP Value: Recent Developments in Damages and Licensing”, Top IP Retreat, September
16, 2011, Pebble Beach, CA
"Patent Exhaustion", IP Damages Institute, November 8, 2010, Century City, California

"Big Verdicts Under Scrutiny: Taking a Hard Look at the Damages Case", The 2010 Midwest
Intellectual Property Institute, September 24, 2010, Minneapolis, Minnesota

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 6
th
“Do’s and Don’ts of Being and Expert Witness”, 24 Annual Bankruptcy and Restructuring
Conference, Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors, June 7, 2008, Las Vegas,
Nevada
“Enforcing the License Agreement, Royalty Audits, Collections, and Litigation” The Intellectual
Property Law Section of the State Bar of California, April 9, 2008, San Francisco, California
“Effective Presentations of Financial Information at Trial”, 2007 Advanced Litigation Conference,

California Society of CPAs, May 3, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada
“Discounting Damages to Present Value: Today’s Hottest Issues,” panelist, Business Valuation
Resources, July 20, 2005, Telephonic Conference
“Assessing and Proving Damages from Infringement,” panelist, USC Law School 2004 Intellectual
Property Institute, May 25, 2004, Beverly Hills, California
“Economic Damages,” AICPA National Business Valuation Conference, November 17, 2003,
Phoenix, Arizona
“Discovery of Expert Drafts and Notes, Panel Discussion,” Advanced Workshop on Calculating &
Proving Patent Damages, Law Seminars International, November 12, 2003, Seattle, Washington
“Calculating and Presenting Lost Profits: The Bread and Butter of Litigation Services” and “Mock
Arbitration for Lost Profits”, panelist on both presentations, AICPA National Conference on
Advanced Litigation Services, October 1, 2003, Miami, Florida
“Discount Rates and Taxation Issues in Damages,” 2003 Advanced Business Litigation Institute,
California Society of CPAs, May 9, 2003, La Quinta, California
“Current Issues in Patent Damages,” The Sedona Conference, November 10, 2000, Sedona,
Arizona
“Tax Issues in Lost Profits Damage Calculations” and panelist for “Expert Shootout, or Shoot the
Expert,” 2000 AICPA National Advanced Litigation Services Conference, October 17, 2000, Beverly
Hills, California
“IP Valuation: A Critical Component in Transactional and Litigation Strategy,” Silicon Valley
Intellectual Property Law Association, September 20, 2000, Palo Alto, California
“Damages, Damages, Damages: Business Damages In Commercial Litigation,” 1999 AICPA

National Advanced Litigation Services Conference, October 18, 1999, Atlanta, Georgia.
“Commercial Damages: A Case Study on Lost Profits,” 1998 AICPA National Advanced Litigation
Services Conference, October 14, 1998, Tempe, Arizona.
“Damages—What You Need to Know as Taught by the Experts,” 1998 ABA Section of Litigation
Annual Meeting, April 24, 1998, New York, New York.
“Expert Witnessing in a Fraud Case,” 1997 AICPA National Conference on Fraud, December 8,
1997, San Antonio, Texas.
“Advanced Issues in Determining Discount and Growth Rates,” 1997 AICPA National Advanced
Litigation Services Conference, October 16, 1997, Las Vegas, Nevada (with Greg Hallman).

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 7
“Alter Ego” and “More Effective Testimony,” EPA Third Annual Financial Analyst Workshop, May 7–
8, 1997, Denver, Colorado.
“More Effective Testimony,” 1996 AICPA National Advanced Litigation Services Conference,
October 1, 1996, New Orleans, Louisiana.
“Expert Witness,” The 1996 AICPA Practitioners’ Symposium, June 10, 1996, Las Vegas, Nevada.
“Calculating Damages,” 1996 Institute of Business Appraisers Conference on Appraising Closely

Held Businesses, January 26, 1996, Orlando, Florida.
“Calculating Damages,” 1995 Institute of Business Appraisers Conference on Appraising Closely

Held Businesses, January 26, 1995, Las Vegas, Nevada.
“The Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure That Apply to Expert Witnesses,” 1994 AICPA
National Advanced Litigation Services. Conference, October 20, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Damages In Employment Litigation,” Employment And Labor Law In Oregon, Lorman Education
Services, April 29, 1994, Portland, Oregon.
“Damages, Time Value of Money” and panel participant on “Practical Problems of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure No. 26,” 1994 Litigation Advanced Forum, California Society of CPAs, April 25,
1994, Monterey, California.
“Patent Infringement/Intellectual Property,” 1993 Litigation Services Conference, California Society

of CPA’s, December 1, 1993, Los Angeles; December 2, 1993, San Francisco, California.
“Expert Witness Depositions,” 1993 Oregon Society of CPA’s Litigation Support Services
Miniseries, November 17, 1993, Portland, Oregon.
“Panel: The Many Roads to Alternative Dispute Resolution” and “Basic Concepts in Litigation
Services,” Fifth Annual AICPA Conference on “The CPA’s Role in Litigation Services,” July 22–23,
1993, La Jolla, California.
“Professional Standards” and “Litigation Process/Role of Expert Witness” 1993 Litigation Services
Conference, Washington Society of Certified Public Accountants, May 20, 1993, Bellevue,
Washington.
“The Deposition of the Expert Witness,” Fourth Annual AICPA Conference on “The CPA’s Role in
Litigation Services,” July 17, 1992 Washington, DC; October 23, 1992, Las Vegas, Nevada.
“Litigation Services Standards,” 1992 Litigation Services Conference, Washington Society of

Certified Public Accountants, May 9, 1992, Silverdale, Washington.
“The Litigation Process Through Discovery,” 1991 Litigation Services Conference, California Society
of Certified Public Accountants, November 20, 1991, San Francisco; November 21, 1991, Los
Angeles, California.
“Professional Standards and Work Papers,” Oregon Society of CPAs, Litigation Support Services
Conference, September 27, 1991, Portland, Oregon.
“Economic Analysis of Damages: Computing Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalties,” IRR’s
Conference on Securing and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights for Competitive Advantage,
September 26, 1991, San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 8
“How to be a Better Testifying Expert,” the Third Annual AICPA Conference on “The CPA’s Role in
Litigation Services,” July 11, 1991, Denver, Colorado; October 10, 1991, Atlanta, Georgia.
“Accounting Standards in Litigation Support—Current and Future,” Colorado Society of CPAs 1990
Litigation Support Conference, December 3,1990, Denver, Colorado.
“Mini Trials—New Work for Experts” and “Issues in Forensic Accounting,” National Forensic
Center’s 7th National Conference, December 8, 1990, Palm Springs, California.
“Deposition of the Expert,” California Society of CPAs 1990 Litigation Services Conference,
November 19, 1990—San Francisco; November 20, 1990, Los Angeles, California.
“Examining Damage Experts,” PLI’s Accountant’s Liability: Trial Strategies Conference, August 10,
1990, San Francisco, California.
“Developing Damages: Mock Trial Demonstration, “AICPA’s Conference on the CPA’s Role in
Litigation Services, July 13, 1990, Dallas, Texas; September 7, 1990, Washington, DC.
“Lost Profits, Business Interruptions” and “The Discovery Process,” 1990 Litigation Consulting
Conference, California Society of Certified Public Accountants, April 26, 1990, Los Angeles,
California.
“Standards in Litigation Services Engagements” and “Expert Witness Strategy Tactics,” Arizona
Society of CPAs’ Conference on the CPA as an Expert, September 25, 1989, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Damage Management,” AICPA’s Conference on the CPA’s Role in Litigation Support Services,
May 12, 1989, San Francisco; July 11, 1989, Boston; October 27, 1989, Chicago; December 8,
1989, Palm Beach, Florida.
“Litigation Services—Damage Studies,” AICPA’s 101st Annual Meeting, October 4, 1988, Los
Angeles, California.
“Litigation Update,” 1988 Marital Dissolution Conference, California Society of Certified Public
Accountants, September 26, 1988, San Francisco; September 27, 1988, Los Angeles, California.
“The Mini-Trial Approach to Dispute Resolution,” Los Angeles County Bar Association and the
American Arbitration Association Conference on New Techniques in Dispute Resolution, February
4, 1988, Los Angeles, California.
“Damages Issues During Trial,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers 14th Annual Seminar,
October 17, 1987, Rancho Mirage, California.
“Litigation Services Committee Update,” 1987 Marital Dissolution Conference, California Society of
Certified Public Accountants, September 22, 1987, Los Angeles, California.
“Using a CPA in Litigation,” 1987 Annual Meeting of the Florida Bar, June 11, 1987, Orlando,
Florida.
“Litigation Services,” 12th Annual AICPA Small Business Management Advisory Services
Conference, September 9–10, 1986, Dallas, Texas.

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 9
EXPERT TESTIMONY—COURT (*Indicates number in deposition section if deposition testimony was given)
No. Lawsuit*** Court Type Law Firm/Attorneys Work Performed

142. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Desmarais, LLP Damages Analysis
Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground District of Texas, Marshall Di-
Package Systems, Inc., FedEx Freight, Inc., vision
FedEx Custom Critical Inc., FedEx Office
and Print Services, Inc., and GENCO Distri-
bution Systgems, Inc. Civil Action No. 2:16-
cv-980 (2018)*362
141. Bladeroom Group Limited and BRIPCO U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secrets Farella Braun & Martell Damages Analysis
(UK) Limited v. Facebook, Inc., Emerson District of California, San Jose
Electric Co., Emerson Network Power Solu- Division
tions, Inc., and Liebert Corporation Case
No. 5:15-cv-01370-EJD (2018)*357
140. CardiAQ Valve Technologies, Inc. v. Neo- U.S. District Court, District of Theft of Trade Secrets, Knobbe Martens Olson & Damages Analysis
vasc, Inc. and Neovasc Tiara, Inc., Case Massachusetts Breach of Contract, Fraud, Bear
No. 1:14-CV-12405-NMG (2016)*(344) and deceptive trade prac-
tices
139. Adaptix, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco Partnership d/b/a District of Texas, Tyler Division
Verizon Wireless, and Sprint Spectrum Civil
Actions No. 6:12-cv-0022, No. 6:13-cv-0049,
and No. 6:13-cv-0050 (2015)*338
138. FieldTurf USA, Inc. and FieldTurf Tarkett, U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Bejin VanOphem Bieneman Damages Analysis
Inc. v. AstroTurf LLC. Case No. 2: 10-CV- District of Michigan Southern Lanham Act PLC
12492-SJM-MJG (2015)*(341) Division Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP
137. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Niro, Haller & Niro Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Toshiba Civil Action No. 09-354-KAJ Delaware
(2015)*303
136. Charles C. Freeny III, Bryan E. Freeny, and U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Jackson Walker L.L.P. Damages Analysis
James P. Freeny v. Murphy USA, Inc. Case District of Texas, Marshall Di-
No. 2:13-cv-00791 (RSP) (2015) vision

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 10

135. Eagle Harbor Holdings LLC and Medius- U.S. District Court, Western Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey, LLP Damages Analysis
tech LLC v. Ford Motor Company Case No. District of Washington
3:11-cv-05502-BHS (2015)*337
134. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey LLP Damages Analysis
Corp. Civil Action No. 10-cv-1065-LPS Delaware
(2015)*322
133. Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Damages Analysis
North America Corporation and Philips Delaware Bear
Medizin Systeme Boblingen GMBH Civil
Action No. 09-080 (JJF) (2014)*311
132. Anesta AG, Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. and U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich Damages Analysis
IVAX International GMBH v. Mylan Pharma- Delaware & Rosati
ceuticals, Inc. and Mylan, Inc. Case No. 08-
889-SLR (2014)*335
131. U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Texas U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Covington & Burling Damages Analysis
Instruments Incorporated Civil Action No. District of Texas, Tyler Division
6:11-cv-491-LED (2014)
130. Innovative Sonic Limited v. Research In U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey LLP Damages Analysis
Motion Ltd. And Research In Motion Corpo- District of Texas
ration Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-706
(2013)*315
129. XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. U.S. District Court, District of Fraud and Patent In- Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 09-157-RGA (2013)*316 Delaware fringement
128. TV Interactive Data Corporation v. Sony U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Damages Analysis
Corporation; Sony Computer Entertainment District of California Ciresi
Inc.,; Sony Computer Entertainment Ameri-
ca, Inc.; Sony Corporation of America; and
Sony Electronics Co., Ltd Case No. C 10-
00475 PJH (2013)*312

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 11

127. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., District of California, San Jose
Samsung Telecommunications America, Division
LLC Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (2012,
2013 and 2018)*296
126. Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corporation U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 09-768 (GMS) (2012)*309 Delaware
125. IMRA America, Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corpo- U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate Damages Analysis
ration Case No. 2:06-CV15139 (2011)*282 District of Michigan Meagher & Flom
124 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. U.S. District Court, Eastern Theft of trade secrets Paul Hastings Damages Analysis
Kolon Industries, Inc. Civil Action No. District of Virginia
3:09cv58 (2011)*285
123. Ahcom, Ltd. V. Hendrick Smedling and U.S. District Court, Northern Alter ego Parish & Small Alter ego Analysis
Lettie Smedling Case No. 3:07 CV 1139 SC District of California, San Fran-
(2011)*252 cisco Division
122. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis
Communications, Inc. et al. Civil Action No. District of Virginia
2:10cv248 (2011)*293
121 Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc. Civil Ac- U.S. District Court, Southern Theft of trade secrets, Laminack, Pirtle & Martines Damages Analysis
tion No. 4:09-CV-1511 (2011)*281 District of Texas, Houston Di- Breach of contract, Tor-
vision tious Interference with
Prospective Business Re-
lations
120. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Maersk Contractors, USA, Inc. Case District of Texas Smyser Kaplan & Veselka
No. H-07-02392 (2009 and 2011)*260
119. Grimaud Farms of California, Inc. v. Whole San Joaquin County Superior Breach of contract, Fraud, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Damages Analysis
Foods Market California and Whole Foods Court, California Tortious Interference with Pallios, Pacher & Silva
Market Services, Inc. Case No. CV030845 Contract.
(2011)*290

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 12

118. St. Jude Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical U.S. District Court, Western Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Puerto Rico LLC v. Access Closure, Inc. District of Arkansas, Texarka-
Case No. 4:08-cv-04101-HFB (2010)*287 na Division
117. Sportsmark Trading, Ltd., v. Roger Cleve- Orange County Superior Court, Breach of Contract Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
land Golf Company, Inc. Case No. California
07CC12309 (2010)*266
116. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. Case U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
No. 2-007-CV-279 (2010)*268 District of Texas, Marshall Di-
vision
115. Advanced Thermal Sciences Corporation v. U.S. District Court, Central Breach of Contract, Fraud Orrick Herrington & Damages Analysis
Applied Materials, Inc. Case No. 8:07-CV- District of California, Southern Sutcliffe
1384 (JVS) (2009)*262 Division
114. Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. SAP Ameri- U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Howrey, LLP Damages Analysis
ca, Inc. and SAP, AG Civil Action No.: 2:07- District of Texas, Marshall Di- Fish & Richardson
cv-153-CE (2009 and 2011)*261 vision
Ropes & Grey
113. Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. AGA Medical U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Alston Bird Damages Analysis
Corporation Case No. C 07 00567 MMC District of California, San Fran-
(2009)*255 cisco Division
112. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., KCI Licensing, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Irreparable Harm
KCI USA, Inc., and Wake Forest University District of Texas, San Antonio Bear Damages Analysis
Health Sciences v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Division
Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. Case No. SA08- eBay Factors
CA-102 RF (2009 and 2010)*257
111. I4i, LP and i4i, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement McKool Smith Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-113-LED District of Texas, Tyler Division
(2009)*254
110. Brea Imperial, Inc. v. Titan International, Inc. Orange County Superior Court, Alter Ego Law Offices of Michael Alter ego analysis
Case No. 05CC06828 (2008)*241 California Bononi
109. epicRealm Licensing, L.P. v. Various, Inc. U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Baker Botts Damages Analysis
Civil Action 5:07-cv-135 (Consolidated) District of Texas
(2008)*246

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 13

108. Carter Bryant v. Mattel, Inc. Case No. CV U.S. District Court, Central Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
07-9049 SGL (RNBx) Consolidated with District of California Trade Secret Misappropri- Business Valuation
Case No. 04-9059 and Case No. 05-2727 ation
(2008 and 2011)*240
107. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. Civil Action U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Fish & Richardson Damages Analysis
No. 9:06-cv174-RC (2008)*244 District of Texas
106. North American Title Company v. Liberty Contra Costa County Court, Theft of Trade Secret Weintraub Genshlea Damages Analysis
Title Company Case No. C 06-00187 California Chediak
(2008)*238 Jackson Lewis
Seyfarth Shaw
105. Global Sign, LLC, et al. v. Robert Merto, et Orange County Superior Court, Unfair Competition Bidna & Keys Damages Analysis
al. Civil Action No. 05 CC 04088 (2008) California
104. Computer Acceleration Corporation v. Mi- U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement McKool Smith Damages Analysis
crosoft Corporation Case No. 9:06CV-140 District of Texas Lufkin Divi-
(2007)*235 sion
103. Cybergym Research LLC v. ICON Health & U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement Russo & Hale Damages Analysis
Fitness, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Co., Costco District of Texas Marshall Divi-
Wholesale Corp., The Sports Authority, Inc., sion
& Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. Case No.
2:05-cv-527-DF (2007)*230
102. Electromotive, Inc. v. Mercury Marine Case U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Kaufman & Canoles Damages Analysis
No. 1:06CV1139 (GBL/TRJ) (2007) District of Virginia
101 Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm Incor- U.S. District Court Central Dis- Patent Infringement Wilmer Cutler Pickering Damages Analysis &
porated Case No. SACV05-467 JVS (RNBx) trict of California, Southern Hale & Dorr Irreparable Harm
(2007) *224 Division
100. In re 3dfx Interactive, Inc. and William A. U.S. Bankruptcy Court North- Fraudulent Transfer Buchalter Nemer Business Valuation
Brandt, Jr., Trustee v. nVidia Corporation ern District of California San
and nVidia Investment Company Case No. Jose Division
02-55795 RLE (2007) *213

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 14

99. MAN Aktiengesellschaft, et al. v. Multnomah Circuit Court, Fraud Ball Janik Solvency analysis, Ordinary
DaimlerChrysler AG, Freightliner LLC, et al. Oregon Alston & Bird Course of Business,
No. 0412-13050 (2006) Reasonably Equivalent Val-
ue
98. In the Matter of the George L. Brichetto and Stanislaus Superior Court, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damrell Nelson Schrimp Trust Accounting and Dam-
Elizabeth M. Brichetto Living Trust Dated California Pallios Pacher & Silva ages Analysis
October 1, 1987, as Amended. Case No.
328789 (2006)
97. Christopher R. Harris v. San Jose Mercury U.S. District Court Northern Copyright Infringement DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Damages Analysis
News, Inc. Case No. C-04-05262 (CRB) District of California Cary; Sheppard Mullin
(2006) *217
96. L.G. Philips LCD Co. Ltd. V. Tatung Com- U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Howrey LLP Damages Analysis
pany, Tatung Company of America, Inc., Delaware
Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and View-
Sonic Corporation. Civil Action No. 05-292
(JJF) (2006) *218
95. PostX Corporation v. Secure Data In Motion, U.S. District Court Northern Unfair Competition Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Damages Analysis
Inc., d/b/a Sigaba Case Nos. C02-04483 SI District of California, San Fran- Pittman
and C03-0521 SI (2006) *210 cisco Division
94. Stephen M. Waltrip, et al. v. Kevin B. Sacramento Superior Court, Fraud and Breach of Sedgwick Detert Moran & Damages Analysis
Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 01AS04979 California Fiduciary Relationship Arnold Alter Ego Analysis
(2005) *211
93. Coleman (Parent) Holding v. Morgan Stan- Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Breach of Fiduciary Duty Jenner & Block Punitive Damages
ley Co., Inc. Case No. 2003 CA 005045 A1 Judicial Circuit Palm Beach
(2005) *206 County, Florida
92. Tarik Omari, et al. v. Kindred Healthcare Los Angeles Superior Court, Fraud Law Offices of Victor L. Punitive Damages
Operating, Inc. et al. Case No. BC280010 California George
(2005)
91. Coelho, et al. v. Coelho, et al. Case Nos. Fresno Superior Court, Cali- Breach of Fiduciary Duties Damrell Nelson Schrimp Damages Analysis
591120-1, 595828-5, 588695-7, and fornia Pallios Pacher & Silva
0537454-1 (2003) (2005) (2006) *176 Lange Richert & Patch
Parish & Nelson

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 15

90. Billy Blanks, et al. v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Los Angeles Superior Court, Legal Malpractice Law Offices of James Damages Analysis & Puni-
Case No. BC 308355 (2005) *205 California Rosen tive Damages
89. Kalitta Air, LLC, as assignee of American U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Damages Analysis
International Airlines, Inc. v. Central Texas District of California Arnold
Airborne Systems, Inc. Case No. 96-
2494CW & 97-0378CW (2005) ) *191
88. The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Fleetwood Eighteenth Judicial Court, Trademark Infringement & Foulston Siefkin LLP Damages Analysis
Enterprises, Inc. & Fleetwood Folding Trail- Sedgewick County, Kansas Interference with Contract
ers, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 CV 2029 (2004)
*203
87. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Damages Analysis
v. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd, Fuji Photo File Delaware Ciresi
USA, Inc., and Fujifilm America, Inc. Case
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) *199
86. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Damages Analysis
v. Canon Inc. and Canon USA, Inc. Case Delaware Ciresi
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) *198
85. Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Entertainment America, Inc., Sony Comput- District of California Oakland
er Entertainment, Inc. and Microsoft Corpo- Division
ration No. C 02-0710 CW (WDB) (2004)
*189
84. Patrick Martin, Inc. and Patrick Walsh v. Orange County Superior Court, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Nordman Cormany Hair & Damages Analysis
Ralph Clumeck & Associates, et al. Case California Compton
No. 03CC06858 (2004) *196
83. Protocol Services, Inc. v. Evolve Tele- U.S. District Court Western Theft of Trade Secret Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
Services, et al. Case No. 5:03 CV 0174 District of Michigan Southern
(2004) Division
82. Jerome Dahan and Michael Glasser. v. Los Angeles County Superior Fraud and Breach of Fidu- Browne & Woods Business Valuation
L’Koral and Peter Koral Case No. BC Court, California ciary Duty Law Offices of Gary
286577 (2004) *193 Freedman

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 16

81. Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Robins, Kaplan, Damages Analysis
Company, Inc. Civ. No. 98-2106 MJM District of Iowa Miller & Ciresi
(2004) *132
80. Mallinckrodt, Inc., et al. v. Masimo Corpora- U.S. District Court Central Dis- Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Damages Analysis
tion Case No. CV 00-6506 MRP (2004) trict of California Bear
79. Meridian Enterprises Corporation v. Carlson U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Mori- Damages Analysis
Marketing Group, Inc. Case No. District of Missouri, Eastern arty & McNett
4:01CV1955CDP (2004) *185 Division
78. Glaxo Group Ltd. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Damages Analysis
V. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. Civil Ac- New Jersey Bear
tion No. 00-5172 MLC (2003) *179
77. Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big Idea Productions, U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Baker Botts L.L.P. Damages Analysis
Inc. Civil Action 3-02 CV-0034 M (2003) District of Texas, Dallas Divi- O’Melveny & Myers
*173 sion
76. LASVN#2, et. al. v. Van Ness and Sperry, Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
et. al., Case No. BC 206251 (2003) *163 California & Punitive Damages
75. Carver et al. v. Audio Products International U.S. District Court Western Patent Infringement Christenson, O’Connor, Damages Analysis
Corp. Case No. CV00-1477L (2003) *164 District of Washington Johnson & Kindness
74. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. General Elec- U.S. District Court, Northern Environmental Contamina- Williams & Connolly Damages Analysis
tric Company Case No. 4:98-CV 0028 District of Georgia Rome Divi- tion
(2002) *135 sion
73. City of Hope National Medical Center v. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Genentech, Inc. Case No. BC 215152 California & Punitive Damages
(2001) & (2002) *154
72. Perry v. Mellon Financial Corporation Case San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
No. 997170 (2001) *157 Canady, Robertson & Folk
71. True North Composites LLC v. Trinity U.S. District Court District of Breach of Contract Baker Botts L.L.P. Damages Analysis
Industries Case No. 99-783 (2001) Delaware
70. MET-Rx Foundation for Health Enhance- Orange County Superior Court, Breach of Contract Feldhake, August Damages Analysis
ment, et al. v. MET-RX USA, INC., et al. California & Roquemore
Case No. 771551 (2000) *126

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 17

69. Telecontrol Systems, Inc. v. Westec Securi- Los Angeles Superior Court, Theft of Trade Secret Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
ty, Inc. Case No. BC 188264 (2000) *125 California
68. Hameetman v. Schumann, et al., Case No. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Hennigan, Bennett & Dor- Damages Analysis
SC 049754 (2000) *124 California man
67. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Robins, Kaplan, Damages Analysis
Medtronic, Inc. District of California, Oakland Miller & Ciresi
Case Nos. 95-03577 DLJ & 96-00942(DLJ) Division
(1999) *121
66. Trovan, Ltd., et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. U.S. District Court, Central Lanham Act Levin & Hawes Damages Analysis
Case No. 98-0094 (1999) *120 District of California Trademark Infringement
65. Precor Incorporated v. Life Fitness U.S. District Court Western Patent Infringement, Un- Christensen, O’Connor, Damages Analysis
Civil No. C94-1586C (1999) *117 District of Washington fair Competition Johnson & Kindness
64. Surgin Surgical Instrumentation, Inc. v. Orange County Superior Court, Breach of Contract Stradling Yocca Damages Analysis
Truck Insurance Exchange California Carlson & Rauth
Case No. 66 2216 (1999) *114
63. Airgas, Inc. v. Praxair, Inc. Common Pleas, First Judicial Breach of Contract Cozen & O'Connor Damages Analysis
Case No. 115 (1999) District of Pennsylvania
62. Chesterfield Investments, et al. v. Stone Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Orrick, Herrington Damages Analysis
Container Corporation California & Sutcliffe
Case No. BC 188858 (1999) *113
61. Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg, Weiss, et al. U.S. District Court, Northern Abuse of Process Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
No. 92C7768 (1999) District of Illinois
60. Saremi, et al. v. Atara, et al. San Mateo Superior Court, Breach of Contract Nelson, Greenberg Damages Analysis
Case No. 387467 (1999) *111 California & Cohen
59. 9850 Meadowglen Properties v. A.G. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Freeman & Brown Damages analysis
Spanos Enterprises, Inc. California
Case No. BC 084216 (1998) and (1997)
58. Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Lauschaer Glaswerk U.S. District Court, District of Theft of Trade Secret Farleigh, Wada Damages Analysis
GmbH, et al. South Carolina, Charleston & Witt
Civil No. 2: 96-3525-18 (1998) *106 Division

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 18

57. Ayre, et al. V. Attwood Corp., et al. Circuit Court, County of Kent, Wrongful Death Kell & Lynch; Damages Analysis
Case No. 96-5087-NP (1998) *103 Michigan Chaklos, Jungerheld, Hahn
& Washburn
56. AMETRON v. Entin, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, Usurpation of Corporate Mahoney, Coppenrath, Damages Analysis
Case No. BC160521 (1998) *101 California Opportunity Jaffe & Pearson
55. Koutney v. Exxon Corporation Santa Clara Superior Court, Unfair Competition McClintock, Weston, Damages Analysis
Case No. CV 748293 (1997) California Benshoof, Rochefort,
Rubalvaca & MacCuish
54. Galaxy Networks, Inc. v. Kenan Systems U.S. District Court, Central Unjust Enrichment, Quan- Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Corp. District of California tum Meruit
Civil Action No. CV-95-5568 DDP (1997) *95
nd
53. Potlatch Corporation v. Beloit Corporation 2 Judicial District State of Breach of Contract Sacks Montgomery Damages Analysis
Case No. CV 95-01992 (1997) *92 Idaho
52. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. v. MCEG Virgin Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Vision, Ltd. California
Case No. BC 016305 (1997) *91
51. Competitive Technology, Inc. v. AST Orange County Superior Court, Tortious Interference with Stradling, Yocca, Damages Analysis
Research, Inc. California Contract Carlson & Rauth
Case No. 74 82 37 (1996) *79
50. Medical Billing, Inc. v. Medical Management U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Damages Analysis
Services District of Ohio, Eastern Divi- Newton & Irvine
No. 1:94-CV-1567 (1996) *77 sion
49. Cook v. Carousel Mall San Bernardino Superior Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
Case No. SCV 07595 (1996) Court, California
48. Forti v. General Dynamics Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Business Valuation
No. KC 016871/017393 (1996) *73 California
47. Wilcox & Devineni v. Wilkes-Barre General Court of Common Pleas, Lu- Breach of Contract Nash & Company Damages Analysis
Hospital cerne County, Pennsylvania
Case No. 5418-C-1990 (1996)
46. TLB, Inc. v. Platinum Software U.S. District Court of Colorado Tortious Interference with Stradling, Yocca, Damages Analysis
Civil No. 95WY621 (1996) *72 Contract Carlson & Rauth

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 19

45. In re: AST Research Securities Litigation U.S. District Court, Central Action Securities Case Prongay & Mikolajcyk; Damages Analysis
CV-94-1370 SVW (1995) *66 District of California Greenfield & Rifkin
44. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries U.S. District Court, District of Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Damages Analysis
CIV 94-0350-PHX-PGR (1995) *64 Arizona Newton & Irvin;
Cohen & Cotton
43. Supra Corporation v. D.L. Horton Enterpris- Los Angeles Superior Breach of Fiduciary Duty Stradling, Yocca, Damages Analysis
es, Inc. Court, California Carlson & Rauth
BC 093085 (1995) *61
42. Portland 76 v. UNOCAL, et al. U.S. District Court Breach of Contract Ball, Janik & Novack Damages Analysis
Case No. 92-1635 (1995) District of Oregon
41. Mortorff v. Scotti Bros. Entertainment Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Law Offices of James P. Damages Analysis
No. BC 022503 (1995) California Tierney
40. Mahne v. Crown Roll Leaf Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Quinn, Emanuel, Damages Analysis
No. BC069435 (1994) *59 California Urquhart & Oliver
39. Castro v. Paine Webber, Inc. U.S. District Court, Eastern Class Action Provost & Umphrey Fairness of Settlement
No. 1:94CV65 and No. 1:94CV256 (1994) Division of Texas Securities Case
38. Virgin Vision Ltd. v. The Samuel Goldwyn Los Angeles Superior Court, Intellectual Property Law Offices of Damages Analysis
Co. California James P. Tierney
No. BC-013701 (1994) *58
37. Chaintool Company v. Workman, Nydegger Third Judicial Court, Salt Lake Patent Attorney Malprac- Wilkins, Oritt & Headman Damages Analysis
& Jensen City, Utah tice
Civil No. 900903226CV (1994) *55
36. In re: Information Resources, Inc. U.S. District Court, Northern Class Action Securities Freeborn & Peters; Budgeting
Civil No. 89C 3712 (1994) *53 District of Illinois Case Katten, Muchin & Zavis
35. Lawrence v. Equipment Denis Circuit Court, Multnomah Products Liability Farleigh, Wada & Witt Damages Analysis
(1993) County, Oregon
34. Georgia Pacific v. Corrugated Partitions, Inc. Orange County Superior Court, Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Alter Ego Analysis
(1993) California
33. Grice Industries v. Ingman Circuit Court, Lane County, Patent Attorney Malprac- Williams & Troutwine Damages Analysis
(1993) Oregon tice

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 20

32. Boly v. Boly Circuit Court, Multnomah Marital Dissolution Gevurtz, Menashe, Hergert, Business Valuation
(1992) County, Oregon Larson & Kurshner
31. Rekdahl v. Owens Illinois Los Angeles Superior Court, Products Liability Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages
(1992) California
30. E.J. Bartells Co. v. A.P. Green Industries King County Superior Court, Securities Laws Violations Thompson & Mitchell Damages Analysis
(1992) *42 Washington
29. Glock v. Owens Illinois Philadelphia County Court, Products Liability Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages
(1991) Pennsylvania
28. Ixsys v. Stratagene San Diego Superior Court, Intellectual Property Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
(1991) *38 California
27. WSI v. Port of Portland Circuit Court, Multnomah Breach of Contract Bogle & Gates Damages Analysis
26. Torppe v. Saint Joseph Medical Center Los Angeles, Superior Court, Medical Malpractice Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Damages Analysis
(1991) California
25. Keike v. Owens Illinois (1991) Circuit Court, Hawaii Asbestos Greeley, Walker & Kowen Punitive Damages
24. Gresham v. Warren Tool Circuit Court, Multnomah Product Liability Farleigh, Wada & Witt Damages Analysis
23. Ingram v. Owens Illinois U.S. District Court, Oregon Asbestos Morgenstein & Jubelirer Punitive Damages
(1990) *36
22. First Interstate Bank of Washington v. AFC King County Superior Court, Lender Liability Davis, Wright & Tremaine Damages Analysis
(1990) *33 Washington
21. Woodbridge Plaza v. Bank of Irvine (FDIC) Orange County Superior Court, Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Real Estate Valuation
20. Hammersmith v. Taco Bell Corp. U.S. District Court, Oregon Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate, Damages Analysis
(1990) *27 Meagher & Flom
19. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Holden Foundation U.S. District Court, Iowa Theft of Trade Secret Grefe & Sidney Damages Analysis
Seeds
(1989) *26

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 21

18. In re: Desert High Foods, Inc. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, East- Bankruptcy Gendel, Raskoff, Shapiro Business Valuation
(1989) ern District of California & Quittner
17. ASD, Ltd. v. Carolina Lanes, Inc. Los Angeles Superior Court, Unlawful Detainer Law Offices of Frank Revenue Analysis
(1989) California Whitehead
16. Hideaway Productions v. Ampex Corp. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Implied Warran- Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sus- Damages Analysis
(1989) *25 California ties, Fraud man
15. Bernstein v. Delta Airlines U.S. District Court, Southern Wrongful Death Steven Walker; Damages Analysis
(1989) *23 District of Florida Jenner & Block
14. Lippman v. Levy Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract, Fraud Browne & Woods Business Valuation
13. Kay Co. v. HCC Industries U.S. District Court, Southern Product Liability Mayer, Day & Caldwell Alter Ego Analysis
(1989) *20 District of Texas
12. Challenge/Cook Brothers v. LCB Holdings Federal District Court, Central Breach of Contract Loeb & Loeb Business Valuation
(1989) District of California
11. Gursey v. Landon Los Angeles Superior Court, Accounting Malpractice Haight, Brown & Bonesteel Professional Standards
(1988) California
10. Redacted v. Redacted (1988) *17 Los Angeles Superior Court Professional Negligence Riordan & Mckenzie Professional Negligence &
Damages Analysis
9. George W. Gaulding, Jr. v. River Downs U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central Bankruptcy, Breach of Lobel, Winthrop & Broker Investigatory Accounting
Investments Co. District of California Fiduciary Duty
(1988)
8. Egilsson v. Polarknit Federal District Court, Central Antitrust Shea & Gould Damages Analysis
7. Newman v. Stutman, Treister & Glatt Los Angeles Superior Court, Legal Malpractice Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
(1986) California
6. Stewart v. Stewart Orange County Superior Court, Fraud to Set Aside Hunt, Colaw & Roe, Inc. Business Valuation
1986) California Marital Dissolution
Property Settlement
5. Prowizor v. City of Los Angeles Los Angeles City Administra- Wrongful Termination Lowe & Marr Damages Analysis
(1986) tive Hearing, California

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 22

4. Asphalt Specialties, Inc. v. State of Califor- Riverside Superior Court, Cali- Breach of Contract Legal Staff of California Damages Analysis
nia fornia Department of Transporta-
(1986) tion
3. Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Atlantic Federal District Court, North- Breach of Insurance Con- Irell & Manella Analysis of Reasonableness
Mutual Insurance Co. ern District of California tract of Attorney Fees
1985)
2. Decorative Carpets v. Barkhordarian San Francisco Superior Court, Constructive Eviction Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
(1983 and 1988) *3 California
1. Bernstein v. L.A. New Hospital Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Gold, Herscher, Marks Damages Analysis
(1983) California & Pepper

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 23
EXPERT TESTIMONY—DEPOSITION (**If Protective Order in place)

368. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent infringement Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Damages Analysis
ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., ZTE District of Texas, Tyler Divi- Pittman LLP
Solutions,Inc.., et al. Civil Action No. 6:16- sion
cv-00375-KNM (2018)**
HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., et al. District of Texas, Tyler Divi- Pittman LLP
Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-00363-KNM sion
(2018)**
366. Monster Energy Company v. Integrated U.S. District Court, Central Trademark infringement Standley LLP Damages Analysis
Supply Network, LLC Civil Action No. 5:17- District of California
CV17-0548 CBM (RAOx) (2018)**
365. TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc. Case U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent infringement Hunton & Williams LLP Damages Analysis
No. 1:10-cv-00115-LO-TCB (2018)** District of Virginia
ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., ZTE District of Texas, Tyler Divi- Pittman LLP
Solutions,Inc.., et al. Civil Action No. 6:16- sion
cv-476 (2018)**
HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., et al. District of Texas, Tyler Divi- Pittman LLP
Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-475 (2018)** sion
362 Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Desmarais, LLP Damages Analysis
Federal Express Corp., FedEx Ground District of Texas, Marshall
Package Systems, Inc., FedEx Freight, Division
Inc., FedEx Custom Critical Inc., FedEx
Office and Print Services, Inc., and GENCO
Distribution Systgems, Inc. Civil Action No.
2:16-cv-980 (2018)**
361 Vesta Corporation v. Amdocs Management U.S. District Court, District of Theft of trade Secrets, Katten Muchin Rosemann LLP Damages Analysis
Limited and Amdocs, Inc. Civil Action No. Oregon Breach of Contract Stoll Berne
3:14-cv-01142-HZ (2017)**
360 Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Desmarais, LLP Damages Analysis
Inc. Case No. 16-116-RGA (2017)** Delaware

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 24

359. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. V. Cisco Sys- U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Desmarais, LLP Damages Analysis
tems, Inc. Case No. 3:16-cv-03463-WA District of California, San
(2017)** Francisco Division
358. Lotes Co., LTD. v. Hon Hai Precision In- U.S. District Court, Northern Breach of Contract, Breach Sheppard Mullin Richter & Damages Analysis
dustry Co., LTD. and Foxconn Electronics, District of California, San of Covenant of Good Faith Hampton
Inc. Case No. 3:11-CV-01036-WHA (2017)* Francisco Division and Fair Dealing, Patent
Infringement
357. Bladeroom Group Limited and BRIPCO U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secrets Farella Braun & Martell Damages Analysis
(UK) Limited v. Facebook, Inc., Emerson District of California, San Jo-
Electric Co., Emerson Network Power Solu- se Division
tions, Inc., and Liebert Corporation Case
No. 5:15-cv-01370-EJD (2017)**
356. Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.; U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secrets Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Ottomotto LLC; and Otto Trucking LLC Civil District of California, San
Action No. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA (2017)** Francisco Division
355. Jibe Audio, LLC and Steven Lamar v. Pen- Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract, Breach Susman Godfrey Damages Analysis
tagram Design, Inc., Hinrichs & Associates, State of California of Fiduciary Duties, Inten-
Jimmy Iovine, Andre Young P/K/A Dr. Dre, tional Interference with
Beats Electronics, LLC, Ammunition, LLC, Contractual Relations.
and Robert Brunner Case No. BC533089
(2017)**
354. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan U.S. District Court of New Patent Infringement Feinberg Day Alberti & Thomp- Damages Analysis
Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank Na- York son
tional Association, Chase Bank National
Association, Chase Paymentech Solutions
LLC and Paymentech LLC Civil Action No.
13 CIV 3777 (AHK) (2017)**
353. Kenwood Investments No. 2, LLC v. Fed- American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Winston & Strawn Alter Ego Analysis
erated Indians of the Graton Rancheria tion – San Francisco
AAA Case No. 01-15-005-6087, JAMS No.
1110019071 (2017)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 25

352. Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey, LLP Damages Analysis
Ventures II LLC v. Symantec Corp. and Delaware
Veritas Technologies LLC Case No. 13-cv-
440 (LPS) (2016)**
351. Tatung Company LTD. v, Shu Tze Hsu, U.S. District Court, Central Alter Ego Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Alter Ego Analysis
Shour-Por Houng, Chin-Ying Hsu, Howard District of California, Southern Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg &
Houng, ChiMei Trading Co., LTD, Rich Diversion (Santa Ana) Rhow, P.C.
Demander, Li Fu Investment Co., and
Gregory Hu Case No. SACV13-01743 DOC
(ANx) (2016)
350. Fowler Packing Company, Inc. v. Berne H Superior Court of California, Breach of Contract, Prom- Gibson Dunn Damages Analysis
Evans, III, Sun Pacific Shippers L.P., Sun County of Fresno Civil Divi- issory Estoppel, Fraud
Pacific Marketing Cooperative, Inc., Evans sion
AG GP, Inc., Paramount Citrus Association,
and Maricopa Packers, L.P. Case No.
12DEDG01301 (2016)**
349. ORIX USA Corporation v. Preston Hollow U.S. District Court, Eastern Unfair Competition, Lan- Jackson Walker Damages Analysis
Capital, LLC Civil Action No. 5:15-CV- District of Texas, Texarkana ham Act Claims, trademark
00170 (2016)** Division and service mark infringe-
ment
348. Joyce L. Ielmini, et al. v. Angelo M. Ielmini Superior Court of California, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Palli- Damages Analysis
et al. Case No. 677740 (2016) County of Stanislaus os, Pacher & Silva
347. Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
North America Corporation and Philips Delaware
Action No. 09-080 and 11-742-LPS-MPT
(JJF)(2016)**
346. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Calfee Halter & Griswold Damages Analysis
Mayne Pharma International PTY LTD v. Delaware
Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Phar-
maceuticals, Inc. Civil Action No. 13-2002
(GMS) (2016)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 26

345. Herbalife Ltd. v. KPMG, LLP (2016)** Non-Administered Arbitration Breach of contract, Breach, Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Damages Analysis
of the International Institute Tortious Interference with Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg &
for Conflict Prevention and Prospective Economic Ad- Rhow, P.C.
Resolution vantage
344. CardiAQ Valve Technologies, Inc. v. Neo- U.S. District Court, District of Theft of Trade Secrets, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
vasc, Inc. and Neovasc Tiara, Inc., Case Massachusetts Breach of Contract, Fraud,
No. 1:14-CV-12405-NMG (2015)** and deceptive trade prac-
tices
343. GO Computer, Inc. and S. Jerrold Kaplan v. San Francisco Superior, Cali- Unfair Competition Kilpatrick Townsend Damages Analysis
Microsoft Corporation, Case No. CGC-05- fornia Kellog, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
442684 (2015)** Evans & Figel
342. Masimo Corp. and Masimo International U.S. District Court, Central Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
SARL v. Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical District of California Southern
Electronics Co., Ltd. Civil Action No. Division
SACV12-02206 CJC (JPRx) (2015)**
341. FieldTurf USA, Inc. and FieldTurf Tarkett, U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Bejin VanOphem Bieneman Damages Analysis
Inc. v. AstroTurf LLC. Case No. 2: 10-CV- District of Michigan Southern Lanham Act PLC
12492-SJM-MJG (2015)** Division
340. Wi-LAN USA, Inc. and Wi-LAN Inc. v. Tele- U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey, LLP Damages Analysis
fonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson District of Florida
Inc. Case No. 1:12-cv-23569-DMM
(2015)**
339. Emulex Corporation v. Renesas Electronics JAMS, San Francisco, CA Breach of Indemnity Arnold & Porter Damages Analysis
America Inc. No. 1100077501 (2015)** Agreement re Patent In-
fringement
338. Adaptix, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco Partnership District of Texas, Tyler Divi-
d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and Sprint Spec- sion
trum Civil Actions No. 6:12-cv-0022, No.
6:13-cv-0049, and No. 6:13-cv-0050
(2014)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 27

337. Eagle Harbor Holdings LLC and Medius- U.S. District Court, Western Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey, LLP Damages Analysis
tech LLC v. Ford Motor Company Case No. District of Washington
3:11-cv-05502-BHS (2014)**
336. Phillips 66 Company v. Atlantic Richfield Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Glynn & Finley, LLP Damages Analysis
Company, BP West Coast Products LLC, California Tortious Interference with
Tesoro Corporation, Tesoro Refining & Contract
Marketing Company LLC Case No. BC
518730 (2014)**
335. Anesta AG, Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. and U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Wiley Rein, LLC Damages Analysis
IVAX International GMBH v. Mylan Phar- Delaware
maceuticals, Inc. and Mylan, Inc. Case No.
08-889-SLR (2014)**
334. Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Feinberg Day Damages Analysis
Ventures II LLC v. Capital One Financial District of Virginia
Corporation, Capital One Bank (USA), Na-
tional Association and Capital One, Nation-
al Association Case No. 1:13-cv-740-AJT-
TRJ (2014)**
333. Florida Atlantic University Research Corp., U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Hunton & Williams LLP Damages Analysis
et al. v. TPV Technology Limited, et al.; District of Florida
Asus Computer International, et al.; and
Acer Inc., et al. Case Numbers. 9:12-CV-
80701-PAS, 9:12-CV-80697- PAS, and
9:12-CV-80694-PAS (2014)**
332. SanDisk Corporation v. Round Rock Re- U.S District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Desmarais, LLP Damages Analysis
search LLC Case No. 3:11-cv-05243-RS District of California
(2014)**
331. Chiquita Fresh North America, L.L.C. v. U.S District Court, Northern Breach of Contract Phillips Spallas & Angstadt LLP Alter Ego
Greene Transport Company and John District of California
Greene Logistics Company Case No. C-11-
06683 DMR (2014)
330. Bryan Michael Stow, et.al. v. Los Angeles Los Angeles Superior Court, Negligence Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Alter Ego
Dodgers, LLC et. al. Case No. BC462127 California Smith LLP
(2014)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 28

329. SquareTrade, Inc. v. AmTrust North Ameri- American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Arnold & Porter LLP Damages Analysis
ca, Inc. and AMT Warranty Corp. Ref. No. tion, San Francisco
74-195-Y-000341-13 (2013)
328. Wi-LAN USA, INC. and Wi-LAN Inc. v. U.S District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Damages Analysis
Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America, District of Florida LLP
Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Compo-
nents, Inc.; and Toshiba America Infor-
mation Systems, Inc. Case No. 12-Civ-
23744 (2013)**
327. Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Desmarais, LLP Damages Analysis
Ventures II LLC v. Altera Corporation and Delaware
Xilinx, Inc. Civil Action No. 10-1065-LPS
(2013)**
326. Applied Medical Resources Corporation v. U.S. District Court, Central Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a Covidien District of California
Civil Action No. SACV11-01406JVS (ANx)
(2013)**
325. C-Cation Technologies, LLC v. Comcast U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Kenyon & Kenyon Damages Analysis
Corporation, Charter Communications, Inc., District of Texas, Marshall
Cequel Communications, LLC d/b/a Sud- Division
denlink Communications, and Cable One,
Inc. Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-30 (2013)**
324. TracBeam v. AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Baker Botts Damage Analysis
L.L.C. Case No. 6:11-cv-96 (2013)** District of Texas, Tyler Divi-
sion
323. Guzik Technical Enterprises, Inc. v. West- U.S District Court, Northern Patent Infringement, Theft Kilpatrick Townsend Damages Analysis
ern Digital Corporation, et al. Case No.:11- District of California of Trade Secrets, and
cv-03786-PSG (2013)** Breach of Contract
322. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey LLP Damages Analysis
Corp. Civil Action No. 10-cv-1065-LPS Delaware
(2013)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 29

321. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Trend Micro U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey LLP Damages Analysis
Incorporated and Trend Micro, Inc. (USA) Delaware
Civil Action No. 12-cv-1581-LPS (2013)**
320. Carl B. Collins and Farzin Davanloo v. Nis- U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Jackson Walker Damages Analysis
san North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor District of Texas, Marshall
Co., Ltd. Case No. 2:11-cv-00428-DF Division
(2013)**
319. Language Line Services, Inc. v. Language U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of trade secrets Murphy, Rosen, Meylan LLP Value of trade secrets
Services Associates, Inc., William District of California Holmes Weinberg PC
Schwartrz, and Patrick Curtin Case No. CV
10-02605-JW (2013)**
318. EasyWeb Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc. U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Desmarais, LLP Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-4550 (JFB)(WDW) District of New York
(2012)**
317. In re Heller Ehrman LLP and Heller Ehrman U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Bankruptcy Jones Day Damages Analysis
LLP, Liquidating Debtor v. Jones Day Case Northern District of California,
No. 08-32514 DM (2012)** San Francisco Division
316. XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. U.S. District Court, District of Theft of Trade Secrets, Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 09-157-RGA (2012)** Delaware Fraud, Conversion and
Patent Infringement
315. Innovative Sonic Limited v. Research In U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Cooley LLP Damages Analysis
Motion Ltd. And Research In Motion Corpo- District of Texas
ration Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-706
(2012)**
314. Boston Scientific Corp. et al. v. Mirowski U.S. District Court, Southern Satisfaction of Royalty Ob- Finnegan Henderson Farabow, Damages Analysis
Family Ventures, LLC Civil Action 1:11-cv- District of Indiana ligation Garrett & Dunner
00736 (2012)**
313. Mee Industries, Inc. v. Wasserman Com- Ninth Judicial District, Orange Legal Malpractice Hill Ward Henderson Damages Analysis
den & Casselman, L.L.P., I Donald Weiss- County, Florida
man, David & McElyea, P.A., John
McElyea and D. Paul McCaskill Case No.
2011-CA-004008-O (2012)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 30

312. TV Interactive Data Corporation v. Sony U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
Corporation; Sony Computer Entertainment District of California
Inc.,; Sony Computer Entertainment Ameri-
ca, Inc.; Sony Corporation of America; and
Sony Electronics Co., Ltd Case No. C 10-
00475 PJH (2012)**
311. Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
North America Corporation and Philips Delaware
Action No. 09-080 (JJF) (2012)**
310. Gen-Probe, Incorporated v. Becton, Dickin- U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Latham & Watkins Damages Analysis
son and Company Case Action No. 09 CV District of California Commercial Success
2319 and 10 CV 0602 BEN (NLS) (2012)**
309. Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corporation U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 09-768 (GMS) (2012)** Delaware
308. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Irreparable Harm
Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., District of California, San Jo- Damages Analysis
Samsung Telecommunications America, se Division
LLC Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK (2012),
(2013), (2015), (2016), and (2018)**
307. Apple Inc. and Next Software, Inc. (f/k/a U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
NeXT Computer v. Motorola, Inc., and District of Illinois
Motorola Mobility, Inc. Case No. 1:11-CV-
08540 (2012)**
306. iHance, Inc. v. Eloqua Limited and Eloqua U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Williams & Connolly Damages Analysis
Corporation Case no. 2:11 CV 257 District of Virginia
(MSD/TEM) (2012)**
305. CooperVision Inc. v. CIBA Vision A.G. American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Patent License Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Docket No. 50-122-T-00363-11 (2012)** tion International Centre for
Dispute Resolution

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 31

304. WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Royston Raynor Damages Analysis
Corporation, Fugro-Geoteam, Inc., Fugro- District of Texas, Houston
Geoteam AS, Fugro Norway Marine Ser- Division
vices AS, Fugro, Inc., Fugro (USA), Inc.,
and Fugro Geoservices, Inc. Civil Action
No. 4:09-cv-1827 (2012)**
303. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Rader, Fishman and Grauer Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Delaware PLLC
Lenovo, and Acer Civil Action No. 09-353-
JJF, 09-704-JJF, and 10-282-LPS (2012)**
302. Technology & Intellectual Property Strate- U.S. District Court, Northern Copyright, Trademark, Law Office of William Milks Damages Analysis
gies Group PC v. Basil P. Fthenakis and District of California, San Conversion, Labor Code
Cambridge CM, Inc. Case No. CV 11- Francisco Division Violations & Breach of Con-
02373 CRB (2012)** tract
301. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyoma Part- U.S. District Court, Northern Breach of Contract and Fox Rothschild LLP Alter Ego and Damages
ners, LLC, Peter Pau d/b/a Sand Hill Prop- District of California Unfair Competition Analysis
erty Company, Peter Pau, Sand Hill Prop-
erty Management Company, Susanna Pau,
and Capella-Mowry, LLC Case No. CV-10-
0325 SI (2011)**
300. Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. U.S. District Court, Middle Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. Civil District of Florida, Jackson-
Action No. 3:11-cv-00819-J-32-JRK ville Division
(2011)**
299. Datel Holdings, Ltd. And Datel Design & U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secret, Cop- Howard Rice Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
Development, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation District of California, San yright, Trademark Canady, Falk & Rabkin
Case No. CV-09-5535 EDL (2011)** Francisco Division
298. Whirlpool Corporation and Maytag Corpo- Circuit Court of Cook County, Product Liability Greenberg Traurig Damages Analysis
ration v. Sensata Technologies, Inc. and Illinois
Texas Instruments, Inc. Case No. 09 L
1022 (2011)
297. Redacted v. Redacted (2011)** American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Patent Transfer Schnader Harrison Segal and Damages Analysis
tion- New York Agreement Lewis LLP

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 32

296. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Irreparable Harm &
Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., District of California, San Jo- Damages Analysis
Samsung Telecommunications America, se Division
LLC Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (2011
2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2018)**
295. HTC Corporation et al. v. IPCom GmbH & U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Damages Analysis
Co., KG 1:08:cv-01897-RMC (2011)** Columbia
294. Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Mobility, U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Ropes & Gray Damages Analysis
Inc. 1:10-CV-24063 Moreno (2011)** District of Florida
293. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Morgan Lewis & Bockius Damages Analysis
Communications, Inc. et al. Civil Action No. District of Virginia Commercial Success
2:10cv248 (2011)**
292. Starcrest Products of California v. Millenni- Riverside County Superior Breach of Contract Law Office of David Gerber Damages Analysis
um Corporate Solutions and Lexington In- Court, California
surance Company Case No. RIC 434493
(2011)**
291. Tamrarack Scientific Co., Inc. v. Ultratech, Riverside County Superior Malicious prosecution Thompson & Knight Damages Analysis
Inc. Case No. RIC450454 (2011)** Court, California Hale & Associates
290. Grimaud Farms of California, Inc. v. Whole San Joaquin County Superior Breach of contract, Fraud, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Palli- Damages Analysis
Foods Market California and Whole Foods Court, California Tortious Interference with os, Pacher & Silva
Market Services, Inc. Case No. CV030845 Contract.
(2011)
289. Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP Civil Action U.S. District Court, Southern Theft of Trade Secrets Laminack, Pirtle & Martines Damages Analysis
No. 3:08-CV-119 (2011)** District of Texas Interference with Contract
288. Tecsec, Inc. v. International Business U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Hunton & Williams Damages Analysis
Machines Corp. Case No. 1:10-cv-115- District of Virginia
LMB/TCB (2010)**
287. St. Jude Medical, Inc. and St. Jude Medical U.S. District Court, Western Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Puerto Rico LLC v. Access Closure, Inc. District of Arkansas, Texarka-
Case No. 4:08-cv-04101-HFB (2010)** na Division

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 33

286. Lectec Corporation v. Chattem, Inc. and U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Rader, Fishman and Grauer Damages Analysis
Prince of Peace Enterprises, Inc. Case No. District of Texas, Texarkana
5:08-cv-00130-DF (2010)** Division
285. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. U.S. District Court, Eastern Theft of trade secrets Paul Hastings Damages Analysis
Kolon Industries, Inc. Civil Action No. District of Virginia
3:09cv58 (2010)**
284. Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Farella Braun & Martel Commercial Success and
Inc., Infineon Technologies AG, and In- District of California Price Erosion
fineon Technologies North America Corp.
Case No. CV 08-5129 JCS (2010 and
2013)**
283. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Samsung U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller Damages Analysis
Electronics Co., et al. Civil Action No. CV- District of California, San & Ciresi
08-0986-SI (2010)** Francisco Division
282. IMRA America, Inc. v. IPG Photonics U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Damages Analysis
Corporation Civil Action No. 2:06-15139 District of Michigan Flom Commercial Success
(ADT)(MKM) (2010 and 2011)**
281. Wellogix, Inc. v. BP America, Inc. Civil Ac- U.S. District Court, Southern Theft of trade secrets, Laminack, Pirtle & Martines Damages Analysis
tion No. 4:09-CV-1511 (2010)** District of Texas, Houston Breach of contract, Tortious
Division Interference with Prospec-
tive Business Relations
280. Thomas Weisel Partners LLC & Thomas U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secrets, Howard Rice Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
Weisel International Private Limited v. BNP District of California, San Intentional Interference with Canady, Falk & Rabkin
Paribas, BNP Paribas Securities (Asia) Francisco Division Contract, Breach of Fiduci-
Limited, and Praveen Chakravarty Case ary Duty
No. 3:07-cv-06198 MHP (2010)**
279. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Palm, Inc., Kyocera Communica- Delaware & Ciresi
tions, Inc., and Kyocera Wireless Corpora-
tion Civil Action No. 06-404-JJF-LPS
(2010)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 34

278. Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semi- U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
conductor International, Inc., Fairchild Delaware
Semiconductor Corporation, and Systems
General Corporation Civil Action No. 08-09-
JFF-LPS (2010)**
Inc. v. Research In Motion, LTD., Research Delaware & Ciresi
In Motion Corp., and General Imaging Co.
Civil Action No. 08-371-JJF-LPS (2010)**
276. Rosetta Stone Ltd. V. Google, Inc. Civil U.S. District Court, Eastern Trademark Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Action No. 1:09CV736 GBL/JFA (2010)** District of Virginia
Inc. v Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Fujifilm Delaware & Ciresi
Corporation, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., Fuji
Photo Film U.S.A., Inc., Fujifilm U.S.A.,
Inc., and Fujifilm America Inc. No. 08-373-
JJF-LPS (2010)**
Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Delaware & Ciresi
Ltd. (now known as Panasonic Corpora-
tion), Matsushita Corporation of America
(now known as Panasonic Corporation of
North America), Victor Company of Japan,
Ltd. And JVC Company of America No. 04-
1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**
Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company Civil Ac- Delaware & Ciresi
tion No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**
Inc. v. Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc. Delaware & Ciresi
Civil Action No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS (2010)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 35

Inc. v. HTC Corporation, H.T.C. (B.V.I.) Delaware & Ciresi
Corp., and HTC America, Inc. Civil Action
No. 06-404-JJF-LPS (2010)**
270. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., Marvell Asia U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Townsend and Townsend and Damages Analysis
PTE., LTD., and Marvel International, LTD District of Texas Crew
v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation Civil Action No.
6:07-CV-204 (LED) (2010)**
269. Codonics, Inc. v. DatCard Systems, Inc. U.S. District Court, Northern False advertising, False Law offices of Michael W. Kin- Damages Analysis
Case No. 1:08CV1885 (2010)** District of Ohio Patent Marking ney
268. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
Case No. 2-007-CV-279 (2009)** District of Texas, Marshall
Division
267. Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications, U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Ropes & Gray Damages Analysis
Inc. & VTech Telecommunications, Ltd. District of Texas, Texarkana
Case No. 5:07-CV-00171-DF-CMC Division
(2009)**
266. Sportsmark Trading, Ltd., v. Roger Orange County Superior Breach of Contract Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. Case No. Court, California
07CC12309 (2009)**
265. MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. BTG Santa Clara Superior Court, Breach of Contract Korda Johnson & Wall Damages Analysis
International, Inc. Case No. 108CV109292 California
(2009)**
264. Aircraft Technical Publishers v. Avantext, U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Russo & Hale Damages Analysis
Inc. Case No. C 07-4154 SBA (2009)** District of California, Oakland
Division
263. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. True Fitness U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Workman Nydegger Damages Analysis
Technology, Inc. Case No. 5:08-CV-00026 District of Texas, Texarkana
(2009)** Division
262. Advanced Thermal Sciences Corporation v. U.S. District Court, Central Breach of Contract, Fraud Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
Applied Materials, Inc. Case No. 8:07-CV- District of California, Southern
1384 (JVS) (2009)** Division

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 36

261. Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. SAP U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Howrey, LLP Damages Analysis
America, Inc. and SAP, AG Civil Action District of Texas, Marshall
No.: 2:07-cv-153-CE (2009 and 2011)** Division
260. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Damages Analysis
Inc. v. Maersk Contractors, USA, Inc. Case District of Texas Smyser Kaplan & Veselka
No. H-07-02392 (2009 and 2011)**
259. The Official Committee of Unsecured United States Bankruptcy Alter Ego Baker Botts Alter Ego Analysis
Creditors v. Asarco, LLC Case No. 05- Court, Southern District of
21207 (2009)** Texas
258. St. Vincent Medical Center and Daughters JAMS Fraud, Negligence, Breach Jones Day Damages Analysis
of Charity Health System v. Hector C. Ra- of Fiduciary Duty
mos, M.D., Hector C. Ramos, M.D., Inc.,
Richard R. Lopez, Jr., M.D., and Richard R.
Lopez, Jr. M.D. Inc. Case No. 1220037027
(2009)
257. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., KCI Licensing, Inc., U.S. District Court, Western Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Irreparable Harm
KCI USA, Inc., and Wake Forest University District of Texas, San Antonio
Health Sciences v. Blue Sky Medical Division
Group, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc. Case
No. SA08-CA-102 RF (2009 and 2010)**
256. Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement The Roth Firm Damages Analysis
Inc. Civil Action No. 6-07CV-048 (2009)** District of Texas, Tyler Divi-
sion
255. Medtronic, Inc., et al. v. AGA Medical U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Alston Bird Damages Analysis
Corporation Case No. C 07 00567 MMC District of California, San
254. I4i, LP and i4i, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement McKool Smith Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 6:07-CV-113-LED (2009)** District of Texas, Tyler Divi-
sion
253. Finmeccanica S.p.A. and Ansaldo Ricerche U.S. District Court, Central Trade Secret Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis
S.p.A. v. General Motors Case No. 07- District of California, Western
08222 SJO (PJWx) and No. 07-07537 SJO Division
(PJWx) (2009)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 37

252. Ahcom, Ltd. V. Hendrick Smedling and U.S. District Court, Northern Alter ego Parish & Small Alter ego Analysis
Lettie Smedling Case No. 3:07 CV 1139 District of California, San
SC (2008) Francisco Division
251. Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. American Stores U.S. District Court, Northern Trademark Infringement Craigie, McCarthy & Clow Damages Analysis
Company, LLC, New Albertson’s, Inc., Al- District of California, San Pirkey Barber LLP
bertson’s LLC, and Save Mart Supermar- Francisco Division
kets. Civil Action No. C06-2173 JSW
(2008)**
250. Convolve, Inc. and Massachusetts Institute U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Cadwalader, Wickersham and Damages Analysis
of Technology v. Compaq Computer Corp. District of New York Taft
and Seagate Technology LLC Case No. 00
Civ. 5141 GBD (2008)**
249. Intel Corporation and Dell, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Townsend and Townsend and Damages Analysis
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial District of Texas Crew
Research Organisation Civil Action No.
6:06CV550 (2008)**
248. Ainsworth Engineered (USA) LLC et al v. U.S. District Court, Northern Product Liability Dorsey & Whitney Damages Analysis
Advanced Manufacturing Corporation et al District of Ohio
Case No. 1:07 CV 00909 CAB (2008)**
247. Vanguard Products Group v. Merchandis- U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Stoll Berne Damages Analysis
ing Technologies, Inc. Case No. 07-1405- Oregon
BR (2008)**
246. epicRealm Licensing, L.P. v. Various, Inc. U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Baker Botts Damages Analysis
and Herbalife International, Inc. Civil Action District of Texas
5:07-cv-135 (Consolidated) (2008)**
245. Oracle Corporation v. epicRealm Licensing, U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
L.P. Civil Action No. 06-cv-414 SLR Delaware
(2008)**
244. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. Civil U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Fish & Richardson Damages Analysis
Action No. 9:06-cv174-RC (2008)** District of Texas
243. Brent Williams, As Plan Trustee for Touch Montana Second Judicial Breach of Fiduciary Duty Winston & Strawn Damages Analysis
America Holdings, Inc. v. Robert P. Gan- District Court, Silver Bow
non, et al. Cause No. DV-2-201 (2008)** County

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 38

242. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories, U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Munger Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
Inc., and Abbott Pharmaceuticals PR Ltd. District of Illinois
V. Sandoz, Inc. Civil Action No. 05 C 5373
(2008)**
241. Brea Imperial, Inc. v. Titan International, Orange County Superior Alter Ego Law Offices of Michael Bononi Alter ego analysis
Inc. Case No. 05CC06828 (2008) Court, California
240. Carter Bryant v. Mattel, Inc. Case No. CV U.S. District Court, Central Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Damages Analysis
07-9049 SGL (RNBx) Consolidated with District of California Trade Secret Misappropria-
Case No. 04-9059 and Case No. 05-2727 tion, RICO
(2008, 2010, and 2011)**
239. Comcast Cable Communication U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Morgan & Finnegan Damages Analysis
Corporation, LLC v. Finisar Corporation District of California, San
Case No. C-06-04206-WHA (2008)** Francisco Division
238. North American Title Company v. Liberty Contra Costa County Court, Theft of Trade Secret Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Damages Analysis
Title Company Case No. C 06-00187 California Jackson Lewis
(2008)**
Seyfarth Shaw
237. Eastman Kodak Company v. St. Clair Santa Clara County Court, Slander of Title Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc., et al. California
Case No. 1-05-CV-039164 (2008)**
236. Diana Gabriel, et al. v. Verizon Orange County Superior Breach of Contract Paul Hastings Janofsky & Damages Analysis
Communications Inc., et al. Case No. 04 Court, California Walker
CC 00591 (2007)
235. Computer Acceleration Corporation v. U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement McKool Smith Damages Analysis
Microsoft Corporation Case No. 9:06CV- District of Texas Lufkin Divi-
140 (2007)** sion
234. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Factory U.S. District Court Southern Business Interruption Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
Mutual Insurance Company Case No. 04- District of New York
CV-02791 (2007)**
233. Veritas Operating Corporation v. Microsoft U.S. District Court Western Patent Infringement Latham & Watkins Damages Analysis
Corporation Case No. 2:06-cv-00703-JCC District of Washington at
(2007)** Seattle

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 39

232. Polycom, Inc. and Polycom Israel, Ltd. v. U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Codian Ltd. And Codian, Inc. Case No. 2- District of Texas Marshall
05CV-520 DF (2007)** Division
231. ISP.NET LLC d/b/a IQuest Internet v. U.S. District Court Southern Trademark Infringement Reed Smith Sachnoff & Weaver Damages Analysis
Qwest Communications International, Inc. District of Indiana Indianapolis
Case No. IP01-0480 C B/S (2007)** Division
230. Cybergym Research LLC v. ICON Health & U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement Russo & Hale Damages Analysis
Fitness, Inc., Sears Roebuck & Co., Costco District of Texas Marshall
Wholesale Corp., The Sports Authority, Division
Inc., & Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. Case
No. 2:05-cv-527-DF (2007)**
229. Timeline, Inc. v. Proclarity Corporation and U.S. District Court Western Patent Infringement Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Damages Analysis
Microsoft Corporation Case No. CV05- District of Washington at Se-
1013JLR (2007)** attle
228. David Gill, Post Confirmation Trustee for U.S. Bankruptcy Court Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howard Rice Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
the Estate of Lyon & Lyon v. Orrick, Her- Central District of California Canady, Falk & Rabkin
rington & Sutcliffe, LLP, et al. Case No. LA- Los Angeles Division
03-10365-VZ (2007)**
227. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Sales U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Finnigan Henderson Farabow Damages Analysis
Corporation, Mirowski Family Ventures, District of Indiana, Indianapo- Barrett & Dunner LLP
LLC, and Anna Mirowski v. St. Jude Medi- lis Division
cal, Inc. and Pacesetter, Inc. Civil No. 1:96-
CV-1718-DFH/TAB (2007)**
226. Creative Concepts Software, Inc. and ITEK U.S. District Court Central Breach of contract The Feldhake Law Firm Damages Analysis
Services, Inc. v. MobileTech Solutions, Inc. District of California, Southern
Case No. SA CV 05-00670 DOC (MLGx) Division
(2007)**
225. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
v. Chi MEI Optoelectronics Corp., Interna- District of California
tional Display Technology Co., Ltd., Inter-
national Display Technology USA, Inc.,
Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC and
CTX Technology Corp. C04-4675 RS
(2007)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 40

224. Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm U.S. District Court Central Patent Infringement Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Damages Analysis
Incorporated Case No. SACV05-467 JVS District of California, Southern Dorr
(RNBx (2007)** Division
223. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. U.S. District Court Central Patent Infringement Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
v. Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp.; Samsung District of California
Techwin Co., Ltd.; Samsung
Optoelectronics America, Inc.; Matsunichi
Hi-Tech Ltd.; and Matsunichi Hi-Tech
(USA), Inc. Case No. CV 04-4783 TJH
(2006)**
222. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom U.S. District Court Southern Patent Infringement Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Damages Analysis
Corporation Case No. 05 CV 1662 B (BLM) District of California Dorr
(2006)**
221. Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom U.S. District Court Southern Patent Infringement Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Damages Analysis
Corporation Case No. 05 CV 1958 (2006)** District of California Dorr
220. The Nautilus Group, Inc. v. ICON Health & U.S. District Court of Western Trademark Infringement Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mar- Damages Analysis
Fitness, Inc., Case No. 02-1420 RSM District of Washington maro
(2006)**
219. Moss, et al. v. Veneco et al. Case No. Los Angeles Superior Court, Mass Tort Gallagher & Gallagher; Steptoe Alter Ego
297083 (2006) California & Johnson
218. L.G. Philips LCD Co. Ltd. V. Tatung U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Howrey LLP Damages Analysis
Company, Tatung Company of America, Delaware
Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and
ViewSonic Corporation. Civil Action No.
05-292 (JJF) (2006)**
217. Christopher R. Harris v. San Jose Mercury U.S. District Court Northern Copyright Infringement DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary Damages Analysis
News, Inc. Case No. C-04-05262 (CRB) District of California
(2006)
216. Dey, L.P. v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. U.S. District Court Central Patent Infringement Hennigan Bennett & Dorman Commercial Success
and Eon Labs, Inc. Case Nos. SACV 04- District of California Southern
00079 CJC (FMOx) and SACV 04-00243 District
CJC (FMOx) (2006)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 41

215. McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Damages Analysis
The Trizetto Group, Inc. Civil Action No. 04- District of Delaware Flom
1258 (2005)**
214. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc. U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement Baker Botts L.L.P. Damages Analysis
v. Advanced Bionics Corporation Civil Ac- District of Texas Sherman
tion No. 4:04cv131 (Brown) (2005)** Division
213 Trustee in Bankruptcy for 3dfx v. NVIDIA U.S. Bankruptcy Court North- Fraudulent Transfer Buchalter Nemer Fields & Business Valuation
Corp. Case No. 02-55795 JRG (2005) ** ern District of California San Younger
Jose Division
212 John R. Jamison v. Olin Corporation- U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Damages Analysis
Winchester Division; U.S. Repeating Arms Oregon Shlachter
Co., Inc.,; Browning; Browning Arms Co.;
and G.I. Joe’s Case No. 3-03-01036-KI
(2005)**
211. Stephen M. Waltrip, et al. v. Kevin B. Sacramento Superior Court, Fraud and Breach of Sedgwick Detert Moran & Damages Analysis
Kimberlin, et al. Case No. 01AS04979 California Fiduciary Relationship Arnold Alter Ego Analysis
(2005)
210. PostX Corporation v. Secure Data In U.S. District Court Northern Unfair Competition Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Damages Analysis
Motion, Inc., d/b/a Sigaba Case Nos. C02- District of California, San Pittman
04483 SI and C03-0521 SI (2005)** Francisco Division
209. Network Appliance, Inc. v. BlueArc U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Howrey Simon Arnold & White Damages Analysis
Corporation Case No. C 03-05665 MHP District of California, San
208. Teri J. McDermott, CMI, et al. v. Advanstar U.S. District Court Northern Copyright Infringement Greenberg Traurig Damages Analysis
Communications, Inc. Case No. 1:98 CV District of Ohio, Eastern Divi-
515 (2005) sion
207. Storage Technology Corporation v. U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Howrey Simon Arnold & White Damages Analysis
Quantum Corporation Civil Action No. 03- Colorado
M-0672 PAC (2005)**
206. Coleman (Parent) Holding v. Morgan Stan- Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Breach of Fiduciary Duty Jenner & Block Business Valuation
ley Co., Inc. Case No. 2003 CA 005045 A1 Judicial Circuit Palm Beach Punitive Damages Anal-
(2005) County, Florida ysis

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 42

205. Billy Blanks, et al. v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP Los Angeles Superior Court, Legal Malpractice Law Offices of James Rosen Damages Analysis
Case No. BC 308355 (2005) California
204. Intergraph Hardware Technologies U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
Company v. Hewlett Packard Civil Action District of Texas Marshall
No. 2-02CV-312 TJW (2004)** Division
203. The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Fleetwood Eighteenth Judicial Court, Trademark Infringement & Foulston Siefkin LLP Damages Analysis &
Enterprises, Inc. & Fleetwood Folding Sedgewick County, Kansas Interference with Contract Alter Ego Analysis
Trailers, Inc. Civil Action No. 03 CV 2029
(2004)**
202. LiveWorld, Inc. v. SocialNet, Inc., MatchNet Santa Clara County Superior Fraudulent Transfer Bergeson, LLP Alter Ego Analysis
PLC, et al. Case No. 1-01-CV799864 Court, California
(2004)**
201. Comdisco, Inc. v. SocialNet, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Fraudulent Transfer Winston & Strawn Alter Ego Analysis
MatchNet, Inc., et al. Case No. CV 800 611 Court, California
(2004)**
200. Everything For Love, Inc. v. Tender Loving U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Law Offices of A. Peter Rausch Damages Analysis
Things, Inc., D/B/A The Happy Company Arizona
Case No. CIV-02-2605-P:HX-EHC (2004)**
199. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller Damages Analysis
v. Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd, Fuji Photo File Arizona & Ciresi
USA, Inc., and Fujifilm America, Inc. Case
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) **
198. St. Clair Intellectual Property Licensing, Inc. U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
v. Canon Inc. and Canon USA, Inc. Case Arizona
No. 03-241-JJF (2004) **
197. Kathy Papale v. Pacific Bell Directory Alameda County Superior Sex and Age Discrimination Pillsbury Winthrop Damages Analysis
Company, Pacific Telesis, SBC Court, California
Communications, et al. Case No.
2002055171 (2004)
196. Patrick Martin, Inc. and Patrick Walsh v. Orange County Superior Breach of Fiduciary Duty Nordman Cormany Hair & Damages Analysis
Ralph Clumeck & Associates, et al. Case Court, California Compton
No. 03CC06858 (2004)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 43

195. Marjorie Bright and Edward Bright v. The Stanislaus County Superior Breach of Fiduciary Duty Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Damages Analysis
Bright Family Foundation, et al. Case No. Court, California Pacher & Silva
274513 (2004)**
194. Misha Consulting Group, Inc. d/b/a U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
eBusiness Design v. Source Medical District of California San Jose Canady, Falk & Rabkin
Solutions, Inc. Case No. CO2 04908 JW Division
(HRL) (2004)
193. Jerome Dahan and Michael Glasser. v. Los Angeles County Superior Fraud and Breach of Fidu- Browne & Woods Business Valuation
L’Koral and Peter Koral Case No. BC Court, California ciary Duty Law Offices of Gary Freedman
286577 (2004)
192. Neoris de México, S.A. de C.V., v. Ariba, U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
Inc. Case No. C 02 1670 JSW (2004)** District of California San Canady, Falk & Rabkin
Francisco Division
191. Kalitta Air, LLC, as assignee of American U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Ar- Damages Analysis
International Airlines, Inc. v. Central Texas District of California nold
Airborne Systems, Inc. Case No. 96-
2494CW & 97-0378CW (2004)
190. TV Interactive Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi Damages Analysis
Case No. 02 C 02385 (SBA) (2004)** District of California Oakland
Division
189. Immersion Corporation v. Sony Computer U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Entertainment America, Inc., Sony District of California Oakland
Computer Entertainment, Inc. and Microsoft Division
Corporation No. C 02-0710 CW (WDB)
(2004) **
188. Kelly-Moore Paint Company v. Union District Court of Brazoria Products Liability Weil Gotshal & Manges Business Valuation
Carbide Corporation No. 19785-BH02 County Texas 23rd Judicial
(2004) ** District
187. Kaiser Aerospace Electronics v. Teledyne 11th Circuit Court Miami- Breach of Contract Weil Gotshal & Manges Damages Analysis
Industries, et al. Case No. 95-05288 CA 15 Dade County Florida
(2003) and (2005)**

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 44

186. The Profit Recovery Group, Inc. v. Neil U.S. District Court Central Trademark & Theft of Trade Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
Loder & Associates, et al. Case No CV 01- District of California, Western Secret
6200 AN (2003)** Division
185. Meridian Enterprises Corporation v. U.S. District Court Eastern Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty & Damages Analysis
Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. Case No. District of Missouri, Eastern McNett
4:01CV1955CDP (2003)** Division
184. Hauselmann v. Hauselmann Case No. Stanislaus County Superior Breach of Contract Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Business Valuation
307662 (2003) Court, California Pacher & Silva
183. Bell & Associates, Inc. v. Fidelity National Orange County Superior Breach of Contract Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Damages Analysis
Information Solutions, Inc. & Vista Infor- Court, California Rauth
mation Solutions, Inc. Case No.
02CC02336 (2003)
182. Winn Incorporated & Ben Huang v. Eaton U.S. District Court Central Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
Corporation. Case No: CV03-1568-SJO District of California Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley
(2003)** Western Division
181. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
V. Acer Inc., Acer America Corp., and AU District of California
Optronics Corp. Case No. C 02-02800 San Francisco Division
WHA (2003)**
180. Cambrian Consultants, Inc. et al. v. Stuart Los Angeles Superior Court, Patent Attorney Malpractice Alschuler Grossman Stein & Damages Analysis
Lubitz & Hogan & Hartson LLP Case No. California Kahan
BC 271707 (2003) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
& Hedges
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
179. Glaxo Group Ltd. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. U.S. District Court District of Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
V. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. Civil New Jersey
Action No. 00-5172 MLC (2003) **
178. Deltakor Investments, Inc. v. Carl Karcher, Orange County Superior Breach of Contract Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Damages Analysis
et al. Case No. 01-CC13626 (2003) Court, California Rauth

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 45

177. Fonovisa, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. U.S. District Court Southern Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver Damages Analysis
02 CV 8614 JSR (2003)**; Fonomusic, Inc. District of New York & Hedges
v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8617
JSR (2003)**; HMS Distributors, Inc. et al.
v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8616
JSR (2003)**; Musical Productions, Inc. et
al. v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8618
JSR (2003)**
176. Coelho, et al. v. Coelho, et al. Case Nos. Fresno Superior Court, Cali- Breach of Fiduciary Duties Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Damages Analysis
591120-1, 595828-5, 588695-7, and fornia Pacher & Silva
0537454-1 (2003) (2005) Lange Richert & Patch
Parish & Nelson
175. BCE Emergis, Inc. v. Ariba, Inc. Civil Action U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Howard Rice Nemerovski Damages Analysis
No. C01-21221 PVT (2003) ** District of California, San Jo- Canady Falk & Rabkin
se Division
174. Bob Dylan, Billie Joel, James Taylor, et al. U.S. District Court Southern Copyright Infringement Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver Damages Analysis
v. MP3.com, Inc. Case No. 02 CV 8006 District of New York & Hedges
(JSR) (2003) **
173. Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big Idea Productions, U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Baker & Botts Damages Analysis
Inc. Civil Action 3-02 CV-0034 M (2002)** District of Texas, Dallas Divi- O’Melveny & Myers
sion
172. Robert Carver and Diana Carver v. U.S. District Court Western Patent Infringement Christenson, O’Connor, John- Damages Analysis
Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. Civil Action No. District of Washington son & Kindness
C00-1194L (2002)**
171. Bayshore Ford Truck Sales, Inc. et al. v. U.S. District Court District of Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann Damages Analysis
Ford Motor Company Civil Action No. 99 New Jersey & Girard
CV 741 (JCL) 2002
170. Feltheimer v. Sony Corporation of America, Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
et al. Case No. BC-244836 (2002) California
169. Booneville Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Superior Court of Hendricks, Breach of Contract Leeuw & Doyle Alter Ego and Damages
Cloverleaf Healthcare Services, Inc., et al. County, Indiana Analysis
Cause No. 32D01-0204-CC-38 (2002)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 46

168. Superior National Insurance Group v. U.S. District Court Central Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher Business Valuation and
Foundation Health Corporation, et al. Case District of California, Western & Flom Damages Analysis
No. 02 CV 5155 (2002) (2003) Division
167. United States of America ex rel. William U.S. District Court District of Qui Tam Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
Gilliam v. General Dynamics Corporation South Carolina, Charleston
Case No. 2:01-3023-18 (2002) Division
166. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Elan U.S. District Court Southern Patent Infringement Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Transdermal Technologies, Inc. Case No. District of Florida, Miami Divi-
01-1120-CIV-MOORE (2002)** sion
165. 2learn2.com v. San Diego State University, American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Damages Analysis
College of Extended Studies, et. Al., Case tion Rauth
No. 80 Y 181 00138 01 VMD (2002)**
164. Carver et al. v. Audio Products International U.S. District Court Western Patent Infringement Christenson, O’Connor, John- Damages Analysis
Corp. Case No. CV00-1477L (2002)** District of Washington son & Kindness
163. LASVN#2, et. al. v. Van Ness and Sperry, Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
et. al., Case No. BC 206251 (2002 and California
2003)
162. Cyberspace Headquarters, LLC v. U.S. District Court Central Lanham Act Mahoney Coppenrath Jaffe & Damages Analysis
MacMillan USA, Inc., Case No. 00 CV 9764 District of California Pearson
CBM (JWJx) (2001)**
161. Tri Valley Growers v. Oracle Corporation San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Dorsey & Whitney Damages Analysis
(2001)
160. PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Fiduciary Duty Baker & Botts Damages Analysis
Systems Corporation No. 71 Y 117 00262 tion Townsend and Townsend and Due Diligence
00 (2001) Crew
159. Idea Man v. Silver & Freedman, Case No. Los Angeles Superior Court, Legal Malpractice Krane & Smith Damages Analysis
BC235669 (2001) California
158. Intergraph Corporation v. Intel Corporation, U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Townsend and Townsend and Damages Analysis
CIV 97-N-3023-NE (2001)** District of Alabama Crew
157. Perry v. Mellon Financial Corporation Case San Francisco Superior Court Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
No. 997170 (2001) Canady, Robertson & Folk

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 47

156. Berclain America Latina, S.A., et al. v. San Mateo Superior Court, Intentional Interference with Townsend and Townsend and Damages Analysis
Baan Company, et al. Case No. 403080 California Contract Crew
(2001)**
155. Modesto City Schools, Stockton Unified U.S. District Court Eastern Antitrust Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann Damages Analysis
School District. V. Riso Kagaku Corporation District of California & Girard
CIV S-99-2214 FCD/GGH (2001)**
154. City of Hope National Medical Center v. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Genentech, Inc. Case No. BC 215152 California
(2001) (2002)**
153. Zomba v. MP3.com Case Nos. 00 CIV U.S. District Court Southern Copyright Infringement Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
6831 and 6833 (2001)** District of New York
152. Marconi Communications, Inc. v. Vidar- U.D. District Court Northern Theft of Trade Secret Munger Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
SMS Co. Civil No. CV-1293-L (2001)** District of Texas Breach of Indemnity
Agreement
151. In re: BankAmerica Corp. Securities U.S. District Court Eastern Class Action Securities Green Schaaf & Jacobson Damages Analysis
Litigation MDL No. 1264 (2001)** District of Missouri Litigation
150. Clayton Industries v. SPX Corporation American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
Case No. 72-18166200-SMY (2001) tion
149. Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. U.S. District Court Central Patent Infringement Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Damages Analysis
Dynamic Details, Inc. and GSI Lumonics, District of California Southern
Inc. Case No. SACV00-272 AH (2001) Division
148. Farallon Capital Partners, L.P. v. Gleacher Los Angeles Superior Court, Misrepresentation Hennigan Bennet & Dorman Alter Ego Analysis
& Co. Inc. Case No. BC 215260 (2001) California
147. Flying J Inc. et al. v. Comdata Network, Inc. U.S. District Court District of Antitrust Bendinger Crockett Peterson & Damages Analysis
and Trendar Corporation Civil No. Utah Northern Division Casey
1:96CV0066K (2001)** Stokes Bartholomew Evans &
Petree
146. Process Specialties, Inc. v. Sematech, Inc. U.S. District Court Eastern Antitrust Herum, Crabtree, Brown, Damages Analysis
Case No.: CIV-S-00-414 (2001 and 2002)** District of California Dwyer, Zolezzi & Terpstra
145. Re/Max of California & Hawaii v. Robert Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Lewis, D’Amato, Damages Analysis
Lesh, et al. No. BC186234 (2001) California Brisbois & Bisgaard
Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 48

144. True Fitness Technology, Inc. v. Precor U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Christenson, O’Connor, John- Damages Analysis
Incorporated Case No. 4:99 CV1306-DJS District of Missouri son & Kindness
(2001)**
143. TeeVee Toons, Inc., et al v. MP3.com, Inc. U.S. District Court, Southern Copyright Infringement Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Damages Analysis
Case No. 00 CIV. 3951 (JSR) (2000)** District of New York
142. Marketel v. priceline.com, Inc. Case No. C- U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secret Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Damages Analysis
99-0161 CAL (2000)** District of California & Flom
141. Venture Industries Corporation, et al. v. Circuit Court For The County Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
Masco Tech, et al. No. 99-07219-CK of Kent, Michigan
(2000)
140. Perry v. Miller Wagner & Co. Case No. CV Superior Court, State of Ari- Professional Malpractice Mower, Koeller, Nebeker, Standard of Care and
98-11591 (2000) zona, County of Maricopa Carlson & Haluck Damages Analysis
139. Lussier Subaru, et al. v. Subaru of New U.S. District Court, District of Class Action Wiggin & Nourie Damages Analysis
England, Inc., et al Case No. C-99-109-B New Hampshire Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann
(2000) ** & Girard
138. Optical Solutions, Inc. v. Michael S. Hawes Sacramento Superior Court, Professional Malpractice Law Offices of Richard H. Hart Damages Analysis
and Associates Case No. 99AS05264 California
(2000)
137. St Luke’s Hospital v. California Pacific Med- San Francisco Superior Unfair Competition Antitrust Townsend and Townsend and Damages Analysis
ical Center No. 300518 (2000)** Court, California Crew
136. Pactiv Corporation v. S.C. Johnson, Inc. U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
Case No. 98C-2679 (2000)** District of Illinois
135. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. General U.S. District Court, Northern Environmental Contamina- Williams &Connolly Damages Analysis
Electric Company Case No. 4:98-CV 0028 District of Georgia Rome Di- tion
(2000) & (2001) ** vision
134. MicroGuild, Inc. v. Netscape Santa Clara Superior Court, Fraud Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
Communications Corporation No. California
CV774054 (2000) **
133. Rush Hour Music, L.L.C. v. Magix U.S. District Court, Eastern Patent Infringement Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Damages Analysis
Entertainment Corp. Case No. 2:99cv1003 District of Virginia Norfolk Bailey & Tippens
(2000) ** Division

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 49

132. Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Robins, Kaplan, Damages Analysis
Company, Inc. Civ. No. 98-2106 MJM District of Iowa Miller & Ciresi
(2000) **
131. Guzik Technical Enterprises v. KMY Santa Clara Superior Court, Theft of Trade Secret Gray, Cary, Ware & Friedenrich Damages Analysis
Instruments, Inc. Case No. CV762875 California
(2000) **
130. Merchandise Mart Owners, LLC v. Circuit Court of Cook County, Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
Metropolitan Life Insurance, Co. Case No. Illinois
98 CH 3566 (2000) **
129. Winkler Forming, Inc., PMC, Inc. v. Lewis Los Angeles Superior Court, Patent Legal Malpractice Lewis, D’Amato, Damages Analysis
Anten Case No. BC 194 364 (2000) California Brisbois & Bisgaard
128. Ardent Software, Inc. v. Pacific Unidata, CPR Arbitration Breach of Contract Christensen, O'Connor, John- Damages Analysis
Inc. (2000) son & Kindness
127. Topanga and Victory Partners, L.P., et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Hamburg, Hanover, Edward & Alter Ego Analysis
v. Jones, et al. Case No. LC 038853 (2000) California Martin
126. MET-Rx Foundation for Health Orange County Superior Breach of Contract Feldhake, August Damages Analysis
Enhancement, et al. v. MET-RX USA, INC., Court, California & Roquemore
et al. Case No. 771551 (2000)
125. Telecontrol Systems, Inc. v. Westec Los Angeles Superior Court, Theft of Trade Secret Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
Security, Inc. Case No. BC 188264 (2000) California
124. Hameetman v. Schumann, et al., Case No. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman Damages Analysis
SC 049754 (2000) California
123. Placerita Oil Company, Inc. v. Berry Oil Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Norman, Cormany, Damages Analysis
Trading & Transportation Co., et al. Case California Hair & Compton
No. PC 017079 Z (1999) **
122. GATX/Air log Company, and GATX Capital U.S. District Court, Northern Breach of Contract Murphy, Sheehan, Alter Ego Analysis
v. Evergreen, Ellsinore, et al. Civil Action District of California Julian & Rogers
No. C 96-2494 WHO (1999) (2000) **
121. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. U.S. District Court Northern Patent Infringement Robins, Kaplan, Damages Analysis
Medtronic, Inc. District of California, Oakland Miller & Ciresi
Case Nos. 95-03577 DLJ & 96-00942(DLJ) Division
(1999)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 50

120. Trovan, Ltd, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., U.S. District Court, Central Lanham Act Levin & Hawes Damages Analysis
Case No. 98-0094 (1999) District of California Trademark Infringement
119. Norfolk Southern Railroad v. Flexivan & U.S. District Court, Southern Breach of Contract O’Melveny & Myers Damages Analysis
Dole Case No. 99 Civ. 055 WHP HBP District of New York
(1999)
118. Bitner, et al., v. Bayshore, et al. Case No. Orange County Superior Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Law Offices of Jay Seltzer Damages Analysis
771246 (1999) Court, California Duty
117. Precor Incorporated v. Life Fitness U.S. District Court Western Patent Infringement, Unfair Christensen, O’Connor, John- Damages Analysis
Civil No. C94-1586C (1999) District of Washington Competition son, Kindness
116. Salant v. Spensley, Horn, Jubas & Lubitz Los Angeles Superior Court, Patent Legal Malpractice Lewis, D’Amato, Damages Analysis
Case No. SC033055 (1999) California Brisbois & Bisgaard
115. Susman v. GTE Information Services, Inc. 44th Judicial District, Dallas Breach of Contract Baker & Botts Business Valuation
Case No. 97-06677 (1999) ** County, Texas
114. Surgin Surgical Instrumentation, Inc. v. Orange County Superior Breach of Contract Stradling Yocca Damages Analysis
Truck Insurance Exchange Court, California Carlson & Rauth
Case No. 66 2216 (1999)
113. Chesterfield Investments, et al. v. Stone Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Orrick, Herrington Damages Analysis
Container Corporation California & Sutcliffe
Case No. BC 188858 (1999)
112. Imatec, Ltd, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. U.S. District Court, Northern Patent Infringement Fenwick & West Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 98 CV 1058(JGK) (1999) ** District of California
111. Saremi, et al. v. Atara, et al. San Mateo Superior Court, Breach of Contract Nelson, Greenberg Damages Analysis
Case No. 387467 (1999) California & Cohen
110. ProCom Marketing v. Prestolite Wire Corp. U.S District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secret Morrison & Forester Damages Analysis
Case No. C-96-20978 JF PVT (1998) ** District of California
109. Irvine Ranch Water District v. Merrill Lynch U.S. District Court, Central Intentional Misrepresenta- Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
& Co. District of California tion
Case No. 96-8932 (1998)
108. Zemco Manufacturing, Inc. v. Navistar Int’l U.S. District Court, Northern Breach of Contract Leeuw, Popper, Bee man & Damages Analysis
Transportation Corp. District of Indiana Doyle;
Case No. 1:97CV0260 (1998) Swift & Finlay son

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 51

107. Orlaford Limited, et al. v. BBC International, U.S. District Court Patent Infringement Foley & Lardner Damages Analysis
et al. Western District of Wisconsin
Civil Action No. 97-C-0540-S (1998)
106. Evanite Fiber Corp. v. Lauschaer Glaswerk U.S. District Court, District of Theft of Trade Secret Farleigh, Wada Damages Analysis
GmbH, et al. South Carolina, Charleston & Witt
Civil No. 2: 96-3525-18 (1998) Division
105. Livadas v. Graham & James Los Angeles Superior Court, Legal Malpractice Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
Case No. BC 145386 (1998) California Canady, Robertson & Folk
104. Summa Four, Inc. v. Claircom Superior Court Northern Dis- Breach of Contract Hale & Dorr Damages Analysis
Communications Group, Inc. d.b.a. AT&T trict of Hillsborough County,
Wireless Services New Hampshire
Case No. 95-E-293 and 95-C-973 (1998) **
103. Ayre, et al. v. Attwood Corp., et al. Circuit Court, County of Kent, Wrongful Death Kell & Lynch; Damages Analysis
Case No. 96-5087-NP (1998) Michigan Chaklos, Jungerheld, Hahn &
Washburn
102. AQC Holdings, L.P. v. Dynamic Circuits, Santa Clara Superior Court, Breach of Contract Freeborn & Peters Damages Analysis
Inc. California
CV760815 (1998) **
101. AMETRON v. Entin, et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, Usurpation of Corporate Mahoney, Coppenrath, Jaffe & Damages Analysis
Case No. BC160521 (1998) California Opportunity Pearson
100. Mastercard Int’l, et al. v. Meridian U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty & Damages Analysis
Enterprises Corp. New Jersey McNett
Case No. CA-94-4105 (DRD) 1997 **
99. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Pennie & Edmonds Damages Analysis
Company Connecticut
Case No. 395CV01764 (1997) **
98. McCaw v. McCaw King County Superior Court, Marital Dissolution Perkins, Coie; Danielson, Harri- Investigatory Accounting
Case No. 95-3-07235-0 SEA (1997) ** Washington gan & Tollefson; Kinzel, Allan,
Skone & Searing; Law Offices
of Gordon Wilcox

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 52

97. Foodmaker, Inc. v. The Vons Companies, Los Angeles Superior Court, Defamation Thorsnes, Bartolotta, McGuire & Damages Analysis
Inc. California Padilla
Case No. BC085705 (1997) **
96. JRS Products v. Network Office Systems Sacramento County Superior Libel Law Offices of Richard Hart Damages Analysis
Case No. 95 AS 04411 (1997) Court, California
95. Galaxy Networks, Inc. v. Kenan Systems U.S. District Court, Central Unjust Enrichment, Quan- Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Corp. District of California tum Meruit
Civil Action No. CV-95-5568 DDP (1997)
94. Rubin v. Southwest Leasing Corp. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Browne & Woods; Baker, Sil- Damages Analysis
Case No. SC0322254 (1997) California berberg & Keenen
93. Tung Yuan Construction Co. v. Chao Los Angeles Superior Court Breach of Contract Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert & Investigatory Accounting
Case No. GC 012436 (1996) (Baseball Arbitration) Matz
nd
92. Potlatch Corporation v. Beloit Corporation 2 Judicial District State of Breach of Contract Sacks Montgomery Damages Analysis
Case No. CV 95-01992 (1997) Idaho
91. The Samuel Goldwyn Co. v. MCEG Virgin Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Vision, Ltd. California
Case No. BC 016305 (1997)
90. Ostex International, Inc. v. Boehringer American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Mundt, MacGregor, Happel, Damages Analysis
Mannheim tion Falconer, Zulauf & Hall
No. 79T184 00192 95 (1996)
89. Cook Inc. v. Palmaz U.S. District Court, District of Breach of Contract Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Damages Analysis
Case No. IP 94-1459C (TIG) (1996) Indiana Feld
88. Cinnamon, et al. v. Reaz Shera, et al. Sacramento County Superior Breach of Contract Law Offices of Richard Hart Damages Analysis
No. 95AS01471 (1996) Court, California
87. United Rock Products Corp. v. City of Ir- Arbitration before the Honor- Inverse Condemnation Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mar- Damages Analysis
windale able Robert Wenke maro
(1996)
86. Ferreira v. Virco Manufacturing Corp. Solano County Superior Product Defect Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
No. L003894 (1996) Court, California

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 53

85. In re: America Honda Motor Co., U.S. District Court, District of RICO Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann Fairness of Settlement
Dealerships Relations Litigation Maryland & Gerard
MDL Case No. 1069 (1996) **
84. Brooktree Corporation v. S3 Incorporated U.S. District Court, Southern Patent Infringement Howrey & Simon; Damages Analysis
Civil Action No. 95-2388R (ATB) (1996) ** District of California Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro
83. Redacted v. Redacted (1996) American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis
tion
82. In re: Radica Games Limited U.S. District Court, District of Class Action Securities Sullivan & Cromwell Damages Analysis
CV-S-94-00653-DAE (LRL) (1996) Nevada Case
81. Martin v. Sprint U.S. District Court, Eastern Breach of Contract Law Offices of Lisa Wright Damages Analysis
Case No. (IV-S-93-1731) (1996) District of California
80. Thermodyne v. McDonald’s Corp. U.S. District Court, Northern Theft of Trade Secret Swift & Finlayson; Damages Analysis
Case No. 1:95 CV 0232 (1996) District of Illinois Leeuw & Doyle
79. Competitive Technology, Inc. v. AST Orange County Superior Tortious Interference with Stradling, Yocca, Damages Analysis
Research, Inc. Court, California Contract Carlson & Rauth
Case No. 74 82 37 (1996)
78. Ah Young Industrial Co. v. Brunswick Corp. U.S. District Court, Northern Breach of Contract Thelen, Marrin, Damages Analysis
Case No. 2340 CA (1996) District of California Johnson & Bridges
77. Medical Billing, Inc. v. Medical Manage- U.S. District Court Northern Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Damages Analysis
ment Services District of Ohio, Eastern Divi- Newton & Irvine
No. 1:94-CV-1567 (1996) sion
76. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries, Inc. U.S. District Court, District of Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Damages Analysis
Case No. 89-1920 (1996) Arizona Irvine; Cohen & Cotton
75. Wadsworth Golf Construction Co. v. Castle Amador County Superior Breach of Contract Mark Wleklinski, Ann Rankin Alter Ego Analysis
Oak Investment Corp. Court, California
Case No. 18250 (1996)
74. Conte v. Kelly Los Angeles Superior Court, Legal Malpractice Lewis, D’Amato, Damages Analysis
Case No. LC 018879 (1996) California Brisbois & Bisgaard
73. Forti v. General Dynamics Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith Business Valuation
No. KC 016871/017393 (1996) California

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 54

72. TLB, Inc. v. Platinum Software U.S. District Court of Colora- Tortious Interference with Stradling, Yocca, Damages Analysis
Civil No. 95WY621 (1996) do Contract Carlson & Rauth
71. Strand Home Video v. Affiliated Regional Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Browne & Woods Damages Analysis
Communications California
SC028 190 (1995)
70. Schlessinger v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Los Angeles Superior Court, Bad Faith Schlessinger & Wheeler Damages Analysis
America California
Case No. SC027965 (1995)
69. J.H. Design v. The Walt Disney Company Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert & Damages Analysis
No. BC090 485 (1995) ** California Matz
68. Hewlett-Packard Company v. GenRad, Inc. U.S. District Court, District of Patent Infringement Pennie & Edmonds Damages Analysis
No. 94-10675 RCL (1995) ** Massachusetts
67. Licensing Funding Partners v. Biblioteca Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Howarth & Smith, Damages Analysis
Apostolica Vaticana, et al. California Blecher & Collins
BC 059176 (1995)
66. In re: AST Research Securities Litigation U.S. District Court, Central Class Action Securities Prongay & Mikolajcyk; Green- Damages Analysis
CV-94-1370 SVW (1995) District of California Case field & Rifkin
65. AJIR, et al. v. Exxon Corp. U.S. District Court Northern PMPA McClintock, Weston, Benshoof, Damages Analysis
No. C-93 20830 RMW PVT (1995) District of California Rochefort, Rubalcava & Mac-
Cuish
64. TRW, Inc. v. Talley Industries U.S. District Court, District of Breach of Contract Donovan, Leisure, Damages Analysis
CIV 94-0350-PHX-PGR (1995) Arizona Newton & Irvin;
Cohen & Cotton
63. Fordiani v. Siino, et al. Contra Costa Superior Court, Misrepresentation King, Shapiro, Damages Analysis
No. C93-05885 (1995) California Mittelman & Buchman
62. Gonsalves v. Kaiser Sand & Gravel and U.S. District Court Northern Antitrust Thelen, Marrin, Damages Analysis
SVAR Industries District of California Johnson & Bridges
No. C92-3561 MHP (1995)
61. Supra Corporation v. D.L. Horton Enter- Los Angeles Superior Breach of Fiduciary Duty Stradling, Yocca, Damages Analysis
prises, Inc. Court, California Carlson & Rauth
BC 093085 (1995)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 55

60. Adams v. Calif. State Automobile Assoc. San Francisco Superior Various Business Torts Thelen, Marrin, Cost Allocation and Rea-
No. 916163 (1994) Court, California Johnson & Bridges sonableness of Commis-
sions
59. Mahne v. Crown Roll Leaf Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Quinn, Emanuel, Damages Analysis
No. BC069435 (1994) *58 California Urquhart & Oliver
58. Virgin Vision Ltd. v. The Samuel Goldwyn Los Angeles Superior Court, Intellectual Property Law Offices of Damages Analysis
Co. California James P. Tierney
No. BC-013701 (1994)
57. Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. Richard-Allen U.S. District Court Southern Patent Infringement Sullivan & Cromwell Damages Analysis
Medical Industries District of Ohio
No. C2940501 (1994) **
56. Knickerbocker v. Scudder Reality Advisors Riverside Superior Court, Breach of Contract Giles & Burkhalter Damages Analysis
Inc. Case No. 200169 (1994) California
55. Chaintool Company v. Workman, Nydegger Third Judicial Court, Salt Lake Patent Attorney Malpractice Wilkins, Oritt & Headman Damages Analysis
& Jensen City, Utah
Civil No. 900903226CV (1994)
54. Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed U.S. District Court, Central Lanham Act Nordman, Cormany, Damages Analysis
Company, et al. District of California Hair & Compton
Civil No. 92-4894-JMI (1994) **
53. In re: Information Resources, Inc. U.S. District Court, Northern Class Action Securities Freeborn & Peters; Budgeting
Civil No. 89C 3712 (1994) District of Illinois Case Katten, Muchin & Zavis
52. Guy v. United Healthcare Corp. U.S. District Court, Southern Breach of Contract Robert J. Feldhake Damages Analysis
Case No. C2-92-397 (1993) District of Ohio
51. The Boulders on the River v. First Interstate U.S. District Court, Oregon Breach of Contract Lane Powell Spears Lubersky Damages Analysis
Bank of California
Civil No. 90-19MA (1993)
50. American Savings Bank v. MGM-Pathe Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Guarantee Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Alter Ego Analysis
Communications Corp. California
(1993)
49. Liebert Corp. v. North American Phillips Orange County Breach of Warranty Banchero & Lasater Damages Analysis
Corp. Superior Court, California
(1993)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 56

48. Precor v. Weider U.S. District Court, Western Patent Infringement Christensen, O'Connor, John- Damages Analysis
Civil No. C91-1743Z (1993) District of Washington son & Kindness
47. Astec v. North American Phillips Corp. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Warranty Banchero & Lasater Damages Analysis
(1993) California
46. Gill v. American Savings Bank U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Cen- Bankruptcy Milbank, Tweed, Bankruptcy Analysis
(1992) tral District of California Hadley & McCloy
45. Haro v. The Hahn Company Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Howarth & Smith Punitive Damages
(1992) California
44. Tube Forgings of America v. Weldbend U.S. District Court, Oregon Lanham Act Mayer, Brown & Platt Damages Analysis
(1992)
43. State of California v. Bio-Rad Alameda Superior Court, Cali- Eminent Domain James Whittaker Damages Analysis
(1992) fornia
42. E.J. Bartells Co. v. A.P. Green Industries King County Superior Court, Securities Laws Violations Thompson & Mitchell Damages Analysis
(1992) Washington
41. Stafford v. Miller, Wagner & Co. State Court, Accounting Malpractice Greengard & Finley Professional Standards
(1991) Phoenix, Arizona
40. Firnschild v. Wyandotte Hospital State Court, Breach of Contract Kitch, Saurbier, Drutchas, Damages Analysis
(1991) Detroit, Michigan Wagner & Kenney
39. Bacchi v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. JAMS, Los Angeles, Califor- Breach of Contract Kayajanian, Furay, Damages Analysis
(1991) nia Baker & Hill
38. Ixsys v. Stratagene San Diego Superior Court, Intellectual Property Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
(1991) California
37. Falcon Cable Media v. Booth American Co. U.S. District Court, Central Tortious Interference with Thelen, Marrin, Damages Analysis
(1990) District of California Contract Johnson & Bridges
36. Ingram v. Owens Illinois U.S. District Court, Oregon Asbestos Morgenstein & Jubelirer Punitive Damages
(1990)
35. Sucperity Corp. of California v. Shih U.S. District Court, Central Breach of Contract Fred & Lewin Investigatory Accounting
34. Moreland v. Planet Insurance Company Santa Barbara Breach of Contract Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman Business Valuation
(1990) Superior Court, California

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 57

33. First Interstate Bank of Washington v. AFC King County Superior Court, Lender Liability Davis, Wright & Tremaine Damages Analysis
(1990) Washington
32. El Torito v. La Mirada Redevelopment Orange County Condemnation Bidna & Keys Business Valuation
Agency (1990) Superior Court, California
31. Moss v. Shepp Los Angeles Superior Court, Legal Malpractice Musick, Peeler & Garrett Damages Analysis
(1990) California
30. Woodbridge Plaza v. Bank of Irvine (FDIC) Orange County Superior Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Real Estate Valuation
(1990) Court, California
29. Lines v. Bank of America U.S. District Court, Northern Antitrust Thelen, Marrin, Damages Analysis
(1990) District of California Johnson & Bridges
28. Major Projects, Inc. v. Hismeh Riverside Superior Court, Breach of Contract Bidna & Keys Damages Analysis
(1990) California
27. Hammersmith v. Taco Bell Corp. U.S. District Court, Oregon Fraud Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Damages Analysis
(1990) & Flom
26. Pioneer Hi-Bred v. Holden Foundation U.S. District Court, Iowa Theft of Trade Secret Grefe & Sidney Damages Analysis
Seeds (1989)
25. Hideaway Productions v. Ampex Corp. Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Implied Warran- Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman Damages Analysis
(1989) California ties, Fraud
24. Lim v. Lehman Sacramento Superior Court, Breach of Contract Wolf & Leo Damages Analysis
(1989) California
23. Bernstein v. Delta Airlines U.S. District Court, Southern Wrongful Death Steven Walker; Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
(1989) District of Florida
22. Lippman v. Levy Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract, Fraud Browne & Woods Business Valuation
(1989) California
21. In re: Technical Equities Federal Securities U.S. District Court, Northern Class Action Securities Buchalter, Nemer, Damages Analysis
Litigation District of California Case Fields & Younger
(1989)
20. Kay Co. v. HCC Industries U.S. District Court, Southern Product Liability Mayer, Day & Caldwell Alter Ego Analysis
(1989) District of Texas

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 58

19. Pacific Dataware Inc. v. Novell U.S. District Court, Antitrust Kirton, McConkie & Poleman Damages Analysis
(1989) Utah
18. Cole v. Benvenuti Sacramento Superior Court, Breach of Contract Lovitt & Hannan Damages Analysis
(1989) California
17. Redacted v. Redacted (1988) Los Angeles Superior Court Professional Negligence Riordan & Mckenzie Professional Negligence
& Damages Analysis
16. Sunwest Bank v. Alec Sharp U.S. District Court, Central Breach of Contract Lewis, D’Amato, Damages Analysis
(1988) District of California Brisbois & Bisgaard
15. Standard Wire & Cable v. Ameritrust U.S. District Court, Central Lender Liability Milbank, Tweed, Damages Analysis
(1988) District of California Hadley & McCloy
14. Small v. Rogers Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract and Loeb & Loeb Business Valuation
(1988) California Fiduciary Duty
13. Cleanmaster v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Los Angeles Superior Court, Business Interruption Crouch & Fern Damages Analysis
(1988) California
12. Benvenuti v. Evans Sacramento Superior Court, Fraud, Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann Real Estate Valuation
(1988) California & Girard
11. In re: Technical Equities Santa Clara Superior Court, Class Action Securities Buchalter, Nemer, Damages Analysis
(1988) California Case Fields & Younger
10. Avila v. Goeden U.S. District Court, Central Fraud, Breach of Contract Rogers & Wells Damages Analysis
9. Skeen v. Wynn's International Los Angeles Superior Court, Fraud, Breach of Contract Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Business Valuation
(1987) California
8. Dumke v. Buffalo Chips, Inc. San Francisco Breach of Contract Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann Damages Analysis
(1987) Superior Court, California & Girard
7. General Dynamics v. AT&T U.S. District Court, Northern Antitrust Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
(1986) District of Illinois
6. Zelmans v. Tarzana Medical Partners Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Fischer, Krane, Damages Analysis
(1985) California & Jacobson

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 59

5. Ambassador Foods, Inc. v. State of Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Contract Legal Staff of California Dept. of Damages Analysis
California California Transportation
(1985)
4. Grizzard v. Western Kraft Los Angeles Superior Court, Breach of Implied Warran- Stern & Miller Damages Analysis
(1985) California ties
3. Decorative Carpets v. Barkhordarian San Francisco Superior Constructive Eviction Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Damages Analysis
(1983 and 1988) Court, California
2. Morse Products v. AT&T U.S. District Court, Central Antitrust Blecher, Collins & Weinstein Damages Analysis
1. Atherton Industries v. Sweda International San Francisco Breach of Implied Warran- Cutler & Cutler Damages Analysis
(1982) Superior Court, California ties of Fitness and Mer-
chantability

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 60
EXPERT TESTIMONY—ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORUMS

(*Indicates Number in Deposition Section if deposition testimony is given

37. Herbalife Ltd. v. KPMG, LLP (2016)*(345) Non-Administered Arbitration Breach of contract, Bird, Marella, Boxer, Damages Analysis
of the International Institute for Breach, Tortious Interfer- Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks,
Conflict Prevention and Reso- ence with Prospective Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
lution Economic Advantage
36. CopyTele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation. International Centre for Dis- Breach of Contract, Fraud Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Damages Analysis
Case No. 50 117 T 00883 13 (2014) pute Resolution, International Bernstein
Arbitration Tribunal
35. CooperVision Inc. v. CIBA Vision A.G. American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Patent License Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Docket No. 50-122-T-00363-11 (2012)*305 tion International Centre for
Dispute Resolution
34. Redacted v. Redacted (2011)*297 American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Patent Transfer Schnader Harrison Segal Damages Analysis
tion – New York Agreement and Lewis LLP
33. Key Brand Entertainment, Inc. v. Dancap JAMS Breach of Contract Jeffer Mangels Butler & Damages Analysis
Productions, Inc. Ref. No. 1220038984 Marmaro
(2011) *281
32. Wellogix, Inc. v. BP American, Inc. CA No. U.S. District Court, Southern Breach of Contract, Theft Laminack, Pirtle & Martines Damages Analysis
4:09-CV-1511 (KPE) (2010)** District of Texas, Houston of Trade Secrets Matthews, Lawson & Bow-
Division ick
31. Gold Canyon Mining and Construction, LLC The Honorable Eli Chernow Breach of Warranty Howarth & Smith Business Valuation
v. American Asphalt and Grading Company
(2010)**
30. St. Vincent Medical Center and Daughters JAMS Breach of Contract, Jones Day Damages Analysis
of Charity Health System, Inc. v. Victor C. Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
Ramos, M.D., Inc. and Richard R. Lopez, Fraud
Jr. M.D., Inc. JAMS Matter No. 1220037027
(2009)**
29. Redacted v. Redacted Case No. 74 180 Y American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Howard Rice Nemerovski, Fairness of Partner Com-
00729 06 DEAR (2007)** tion Canady, Falk & Rabkin pensation
28. SilentAir Corporation v. Maytag American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Holland & Knight LLP Damages Analysis
Corporation, et al. Case No. 77133 tion
0022205NADE (2006)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 61


27. George Yardley Company, Inc. v. Johnson American Arbitration Associa- Antitrust Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Damages Analysis
Controls, Inc. Case No. 72 11001086 02 tion Rauth
(2005)
26. Anthony M. Trolio v. RemedyTemp, Inc. American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Damages Analysis
Case No. 72-114-305-02 MACR (2004) tion Smith
25. 911Notify.com v. Verizon Delaware, Inc. American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Munger, Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
Case No: 71Y1810072202 (2003) tion
24. SPX Corporation v. Franklin Electric American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Business Valuation
Corporation Case No. 51 Y 198 00469 01 tion
(2002)
23. 2learn2.com v. San Diego State University, American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Damages Analysis
College of Extended Studies, et. Al., Case tion Rauth
No. 80 Y 181 00138 01 VMD (2002)* 165
22. PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data Sys- American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Fiduciary Duty Baker & Botts Damages Analysis
tems Corporation No. 71 Y 117 00262 00 tion Townsend and Townsend Due Diligence
(2002)*160 and Crew
21. Potlatch Corporation v. Beloit Corporation JAMS, San Francisco, Califor- Breach of Contract Sacks Montgomery Damages Analysis
Case No. 99-2177 (PJW) (2002) nia
20. Clayton Industries v. SPX Corporation Case American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Jenner & Block Damages Analysis
No. 72-18166200-SMY (2001) *150 tion
19. Fourthchannel, Inc. v. Pivotal Corporation American arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Dorsey & Whitney LLP Damages Analysis
No. 50 T 133 00200 (2001) tion Bordon Ladner Gervais
18. Glass & Associates v. Factory Mutual U.S. District Court, District of Breach of Contract Ball Janik Damages Analysis
Insurance Company Civil No. 99-6105-HO Oregon
(2000)
17. Ardent Software, Inc. v. Pacific Unidata, Inc. CPR Arbitration Breach of Contract Christensen, O'Connor, Damages Analysis
(2000)*127 Johnson & Kindness
16. RAM Consulting, Inc. v. Adams Golf American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
No. 74-Y181-0602-98 (1999) tion Canady, Falk & Rabkin

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 62


15. Synnex Information Technologies v. Tandy U.S. District Court, Northern Breach of Contract Nelson, Greenberg Damages Analysis
Corp., et al. District of California, Referral & Cohen
C97-3757 WHO (1999)
14. The Ischemia Research & Educational American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Damages Analysis
Foundation v. UCB, S.A. tion Canady, Falk & Rabkin
No. 74 T181 0440 97 (1998)
13. Green Hills Software, Inc. v. Integrated American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Munger, Tolles & Olson Damages Analysis
Systems, Inc. tion
No. 72 117 01213 97 (1998)
12. Prestige Card, Inc. v. Bank One, et al. American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Lane Powell Spears Damages Analysis
(1998) tion Lubersky
11. Tung Yuan Construction Co. v. Chao Los Angeles Superior Court Breach of Contract Bird, Marella, Boxer, Investigatory Accounting
Case No. GC 012436 (1996) *93 (Baseball Arbitration) Wolpert & Matz
10. Polo Ralph Lauren L.P. v. The Magnin American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Browne & Woods Damages Analysis
Company, Inc. (1997) tion
9. Redacted v. Redacted (1996) American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Kirkland & Ellis Damages Analysis
tion
8. Ostex International, Inc. v. Boehringer American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Mundt, MacGregor, Happel, Damages Analysis
Mannheim tion Falconer,
No. 79T184 00192 95 (1996) *88 Zulauf & Hall
7. Kenady v. Cooper, White & Cooper JAMS, San Francisco, Califor- Breach of Contract Quinn, Kully and Morrow Damages Analysis
No. 940973151 (1995) nia
6. Dahle v. Integrated Resource Equity Corp. NASD Arbitration, Portland, Securities Violations Garvey, Schubert & Barer Damages Analysis
(1991) Oregon
5. Bacchi v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. JAMS, Los Angeles, California Breach of Contract Kayajanian, Furay, Damages Analysis
(1991) *39 Baker & Hill
4. Kernohan v. Prudential Bache American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Fiduciary duty Orrick, Herrington Damages Analysis
(1989) tion & Sutcliffe
3. Scherick v. Taft Entertainment Co. American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Rosenfeld, Meyer Damages Analysis
(1989) tion & Susman

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 63


2. Nuvision Eyecare v. Southern California American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Contract Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Damages Analysis
Glazers (1987) tion
1. Pittsburgh/Des Moines Corp. v. Garden American Arbitration Associa- Breach of Construction Irell & Manella Damages Analysis
Grove Community Church tion Contract
(1984)

MICHAEL J. WAGNER
Page 64
EXPERT TESTIMONY—WRITTEN TESTIMONY ONLY

8. In re Textile Rental Services Litigation Case Circuit Court of Barbour Coun- Class Action Fraud and 14 different law firms Fairness of Settlement
No CV-05-19 (2006) ty (Clayton Division), Alabama Breach of Contract
7. Castle & Cooke California, Inc. v. Waste JAMS/ENDISPUTE Breach of Contract Crosby, Heafey, Business Valuation
Management of California, Inc. Roach & May
No. CV760322 (1997)
6. IMACC Corporation v. Dorothy Myers U.S. District Court Northern Environmental Clean up Morrison & Foerster Alter Ego Analysis
Warburton, et al. District of California Lane Powell Spears
Case No. C 93 114 CW (1996) Lubersky
Larson & Burnham
5. Williams v. Kaiser Sand & Gravel & SYAR U.S. District Court Northern Antitrust Thelen, Marrin, Damages Analysis
Case No. C92-3561 (1995) District of California Johnson & Bridges
4. State Farm, et al. v. Garmendi Los Angeles Superior Court, Declaratory Relief Heller, Ehrman, Reasonableness of Fees
Case No. 918689 (1995) California White & McAuliffe
3. In re: Phar-Mor Inc. Securities Litigation U.S. District Court, Western Securities Litigation Zelle & Larson Damages Analysis
Case No. 93-631 (1995) District of Pennsylvania
2. Reggie White, et al. v. N.F.L. U.S. District Court, District of Antitrust Howarth & Smith Damages Analysis
Civil No. 4-92-906 (1993) Minnesota, 4th Division
1. McCarthy v. Pollet State Court, Hawaii Fraud Goodsill, Anderson, Investigatory Accounting
(1983) Quinn & Stifell

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG
12
Plaintiff,
13 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
vs. SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
14 AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO
15 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New PROCEDURE 50 AND 59
16 York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
17 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW
TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR
1 On July 26, 2018, the Court heard argument on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
2 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively,
3 “Samsung”) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to
4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59.
5 Having considered the record in this case, the jury’s verdict, the papers submitted and
6 arguments made by all parties, and good cause having been shown, the Court GRANTS
7 Samsung’s motion. The Court hereby ORDERS that judgment shall be entered on Counts 18,
8 19, and 21 of Apple’s Amended Complaint, alleging infringement of the D’305, D’677, and
9 D’087 patents, in the total amount of $28.085 million, and vacates any other awards for such
10 infringement in the Court’s interim partial judgment (Dkt. 3290).
11
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14 DATED: ______________________
15
16
17 HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH

United States District Court Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG
28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW
TRIAL AND/OR REMITTITUR







UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
 SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE
vs. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a SAMSUNG’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL,
 York corporation; SAMSUNG AND/OR REMITTITUR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
 Defendants.












[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
1 Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
2 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) have filed an Administrative
3 Motion to File Under Seal Documents Relating to Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion for
4 Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur.
5 Having considered Samsung’s motion, and good cause having been shown, the Court
6 GRANTS Samsung’s motion and ORDERS sealed the documents listed below.
7 Document Portions to be Filed Under Seal

8 Declaration of Michael Wagner in Support of See conformed highlighted version of
Samsung’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of document to be filed within 7 days of
9 Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur
10 Exhibit B to Declaration of Michael Wagner See conformed highlighted version of
document to be filed within 7 days of
11 declarations in support.
12
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 DATED:
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
16 United States District Court Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Apple v. Samsung - Samsung Motion For JNOV (2018)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Apple v. Samsung - Samsung Motion For JNOV (2018)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3828 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 5

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

 APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

 Plaintiff, SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE

 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

2 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively,

17 supported sealing in their declarations.

21 Document Portions to be Filed Parties Claiming

1 Document Portions to be Filed Parties Claiming

6 I. THE “COMPELLING REASONS” STANDARD APPLIES

1 II. COMPELLING REASONS EXISTS TO PERMIT FILING UNDER SEAL

12 distribution, financial planning, and other business decisions.

25 Dkt. 3635 at 6 (granting sealing of Dkt. 3593-4).

3 Rule 79-5 as necessary to confirm whether the information should be sealed.

8 DATED: June 7, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

11 /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

 APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MARK GRAY IN

 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1 I, Mark Gray, declare:

2 1. I am a member of the State Bar of California, admitted to practice before this

5 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”).1 I make this declaration of

7 set forth below.

15 Document Portions to be Filed Parties Claiming

22 5. Samsung seeks to seal portions of the Declaration of Michael Wagner in Support of

6 Samsung’s pricing, distribution, financial planning, and other business decisions.

1 Dated: June 7, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

5 concurred in this filing.

7 Dated: June 7, 2018 /s/ Victoria Maroulis

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

7 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Bar No. 242261)

13 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17 SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

4 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively,

25 Effective January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America (“STA”) merged with

-i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

3 should the Court grant this motion only in part).

18 vii. the proportions of Samsung’s profits attributable to the above-identified

22 Samsung’s “total profit” under 35 U.S.C. § 289; and

-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

4 c. found that the proportions of Samsung’s profits attributable to its display

5 assemblies were as calculated by Samsung’s expert Mr. Wagner; and

7 calculating its “total profit” under 35 U.S.C. § 289.

9 DATED: June 7, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

12 By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis

-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... 1

16 II. SAMSUNG IS ENTITLED TO JMOL ON THE PERCENTAGES OF ITS

-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

7 Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,

10 Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada),

13 Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd,