Plaintiff Wireless Alliance, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Wireless Alliance”) made certain allegations Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and AT&T Corp. (“Defendants” or “AT&T”). According to Wireless Alliance, AT&T infringed the following United States patents that relate to improvements to cellular networking systems: United States Patent No. 9,144,106 (the “’106 patent”), 9,565,662 (the “’662 patent”) and 10,045,383 (the “’383 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Wireless Alliance is the exclusive licensee of the ’106 patent and the ’662 patent, and is the owner by assignment of the ’383 patent.
Plaintiff argued that Defendants inappropriately used Craig Bishop to establish the public availability of 3GPP documents despite him not having the “specialized or personal knowledge about public availability of 3GPP documents” because he is “a layperson with no connection to the actual documents.”
Telecommunications Expert Witness
Craig Bishop has over 30 years of experience in the telecommunications industry with an extensive knowledge of 3GPP and ETSI specifications and procedures including document handling and publication practices.
Discussion by the Court
Parties’ Positions
The crux of Plaintiff’s argument is that Bishop’s “opinion is based on nothing more than his subjective, speculative belief that the information displayed on 3GPP’s website is accurate and indicates when the documents were first made publicly available.”
WA then attempted to equate Defendants’ reliance on Bishop’s report with relying on unauthenticated printouts from the internet by using a declaration from a third party. Defendants countered that this Court had already determined the reliability of Bishop’s opinions regarding 3GPP availability.
Defendants also argued that Bishop is qualified to opine on 3GPP publication dates based on his extensive experience with 3GPP and ETSI.
Legal Standards
An expert witness may provide opinion testimony if “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
Importantly, in a jury trial setting, the Court’s role under Daubert is not to weigh the expert testimony to the point of supplanting the jury’s fact-finding role; instead, the Court’s role is limited to that of a gatekeeper, ensuring that the evidence in dispute is at least sufficiently reliable and relevant to the issue before the jury that it is appropriate for the jury’s consideration.
Application
The Court found that Plaintiff’s arguments demonstrated disputes regarding credibility, as opposed to reliability, and accordingly can be properly addressed through vigorous cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the testimony of Defendants’ expert Craig Bishop.
Key Takeaway:
When Plaintiff contended that Bishop has no specialized or personal knowledge about public availability of 3GPP documents, the Court refused to exclude Bishop’s testimony on that basis because Plaintiff’s arguments consisted of credibility attacks.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Wireless Alliance, Llc V. At&T Mobility Llc Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv95 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Texas Eastern |
| Order Date: | October 23, 2024 |
Leave a Reply