Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Telecommunications Expert Witness

  • Telecommunications Expert’s Testimony on Business Matters Excluded

    Telecommunications Expert’s Testimony on Business Matters Excluded

    Plaintiff Calltrol Corporation (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on October 6, 2018, against LoxySoft AB and LoxySoft Inc. (together, “Defendants”), alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with prospective economic benefit, unfair competition, false and deceptive practices.

    Plaintiff sold call center software, hardware products, and related support services. LoxySoft Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of LoxySoft AB. In March of 2002, Plaintiff entered into an agreement (the “Reseller Agreement”) with LoxySoft AB that granted LoxySoft AB a license to market and resell certain call center products for which Plaintiff was a licensed distributor. LoxySoft AB agreed to purchase call center software products, software developer kits, and related support services from Plaintiff.

    The Reseller Agreement (“RA”) stated that “[d]uring the term of this Agreement” LoxySoft AB “will not directly or knowingly indirectly participate in the development or commercialization of software products competitive to the [Plaintiff’s] Products.” The RA also provides “an initial term of two (2) years” and “thereafter automatically renewed for successive one (1) year periods (each a “Renewal Period”) unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms” therein, which included “written notice” to Plaintiff.
    Plaintiff alleged that Defendants began marketing and selling their own call center products and services (“Competing Products”) to Plaintiff’s customers, directly competing with the products and services they previously purchased and resold from Plaintiff.

    Plaintiff further asserted that Defendants failed to provide written notice of their intent to terminate the RA.

    To refute Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants offered the declaration of their purported expert, Regis J. Bates Jr. Plaintiff submitted a motion to strike the expert report of Bates.

    Telecommunications Expert Witness

    Regis J. Bates Jr. has over 50 years of experience in the telecommunications systems, call center products, and predictive dialers. He is the founder of a full-service consulting and training firm specializing in telecommunications and computer convergence, has authored numerous books on telecommunications technologies—including Voice and Data Communications Handbook for McGraw-Hill—and served as a telecommunications manager (or in an equivalent role) for over 14 years across four organizations.

    Discover more cases with Regis Bates as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Bates’ Qualifications

    In his report, Bates averred that LoxySoft replaced Calltrol’s technology with publicly available tools, wrote and did not develop proprietary switching platforms or predictive dialers, and did not replicate Plaintiff’s Application Programming Interface (“API”). LoxySoft accessed only the limited code permitted under the RA. He further asserted that Calltrol’s product was increasingly obsolete and prone to failure, which made it commercially unreasonable for LoxySoft to continue aggressively marketing its product. Bates concluded his report by opining that LoxySoft did not misappropriate Calltrol’s trade secrets or reverse engineer its product.

    Plaintiff sought to strike Bates’ opinion on the above-mentioned topics, arguing that Bates is “uniquely unqualified” to testify on the parties’ technologies.

    The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments and found Bates’ qualifications are sufficient to allow his opinion on the parties’ call center technologies, including predictive dialers and related software. However, Bates is not qualified to opine on economics or business matters. The Court likewise found Bates unqualified to opine on contractual obligations, including Defendants’ “best efforts” under the RA.

    Aside from serving as an expert in only two breach-of-contract disputes, Bates is not a contractual expert, and contract interpretation is not a proper subject for an expert to opine on. 

    In sum, neither Bates’ “skills, experience, training, nor education” provide him with specialized knowledge regarding a business’ profitability and viability, contractual interpretation—including a party’s “best efforts”—or the nature of the business relationship between two parties.

    Because Bates lacked the requisite expertise in economics and business, and expert opinion is unnecessary for contract interpretation, the Court struck portions of Bates’ report addressing Calltrol and LoxySoft’s business relationship, Calltrol’s profitability, and LoxySoft’s “best efforts” under the RA.

    B. Reliability of Bates’ Expert Opinion

    The Court concluded that Bates’ analysis is sufficiently reliable under Rule 702‘s flexible standards to permit his opinion on the parties’ call center technologies, including predictive dialers and related software.

    First, Bates conducted a detailed breakdown of the predictive dialer capabilities included in the RA between the parties, using diagrams to illustrate the configurations of LoxySoft’s system when integrated with Calltrol’s software and the operability of Calltrol’s platform itself. He also presented a second diagram to detail LoxySoft’s model change in response to advancements in the call center industry, and a third diagram to highlight this broader industry shift away from old call center technologies to cloud-based services. Bates then explained how LoxySoft built its system on a publicly available algorithm and an open-source communications framework, rather than relying on Calltrol’s proprietary API or source code.

    Finally, Bates reviewed Calltrol’s public website, along with the deposition testimony and affidavits from Calltrol employees, to demonstrate the obsolescence of Calltrol’s product, that prompted LoxySoft to transition to a more advanced internet-based platform.

    While Bates arguably could have done more to analyze the parties’ call center software and could have provided more support for the conclusions he reached, the Court will not strike his opinion on those grounds.

    C. Relevance of Bates’ Expert Opinion

    Bates’ report details how LoxySoft used publicly available tools and technology, including an open-source communication framework, and confirms that LoxySoft did not have access to “any of the source code for the Calltrol products.”

    This directly refutes Plaintiff’s claim that LoxySoft misappropriated Calltrol’s proprietary information to develop a competing or derivative product. Bates further details technical differences between Calltrol’s product and the technologies used by Defendants, demonstrating that Defendants’ development reflected “industry advancements, not competition.”

    Because Bates’ report directly addresses the conduct alleged in the Complaint and provides clear technical analysis, its probative value is high and substantially outweighs any minimal risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, or the jury being misled under Rule 403. Thus, the Court found Bates’ report—excluding areas outside of the scope of his expertise—is sufficiently relevant and admissible.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the report of Regis J. Bates Jr.

    Key Takeaway:

    Any such shortcomings in Bates’ methodology go to the weight of his opinion, not its admissibility. Furthermore, because Bates’ report is based on his years of experience rather than formulaic testing or methodology, the Court will not strike his report for failing to meet the Daubert factors.

    In conclusion, the Court found that Bates applied a reasoned, experience-based methodology consistent with Rule 702’s standards, rendering his analysis and technical opinions sufficiently reliable for the jury’s consideration.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Calltrol Corporation V. Loxysoft AB
    Docket Number: 7:18cv9026
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    Order Date: September 24, 2025
  • Telephone Expert’s Testimony on the Reliability of Ytel Records Admitted

    Telephone Expert’s Testimony on the Reliability of Ytel Records Admitted

    Michael Anthony (“Plaintiff”) filed this putative class action against The Federal Savings Bank (“FSB”), National Bancorp Holdings, Inc. (“NBH”), and FDE Marketing Group, LLC (“FDE”) (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).

    The Plaintiff filed a motion to bar defense expert Jan Kostyun while Defendants filed a cross-motion to bar Plaintiff’s expert Aaron D. Woolfson.

    Telecommunications Expert Witness

    Jan Kostyun is an independent technology consultant with over 35 years of experience covering the areas of telecommunications, enterprise architecture, and information technologies.

    He developed expertise in areas such as landline and wireless order entry, including the collection of subscriber contact information and initial implementation of the National Do Not Call registry and has extensive experience in database methodologies, data analysis, and data mining in addition to call center operations and various dialing systems, including those used for inbound and outbound calling campaigns. He has personally performed database queries and data analysis against hundreds of data stores [such as] National Do Not Call lists, Wireless Block identifiers, Number Portability transaction lists and telephone call records produced by both wireless carriers and businesses involved in dialing campaigns.

    Want to know more about the challenges Jan Kostyun has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Telephone Expert Witness

    Aaron David Woolfson has over 25 years of experience in developing and analyzing databases and telephone systems and establishing the interfaces between telephone systems and the networks that convey calls.

    He has been qualified as an expert in other TCPA cases requiring him to analyze call records and compare them against records of leads.

    Get the full story on challenges to Aaron Woolfson’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Aaron Woolfson’s Expert Report

    Woolfson reached three conclusions after reviewing call detail records (“CDRs”) obtained from Ytel, FDE’s carrier: (1) that “there is a reliable method to identify which calls in the call records were made to telephone numbers (a) to which two or more times were called in a twelve month period by [FDE], and (b) that were registered with the [Registry] for more than thirty days before each of the calls”; (2) that “using the CDRs and Defendants’ call transfer logs, there is a reliable method to identify the calls in the CDRs that were to phone numbers that also appear in the call transfer log (“Live Transfers”); and (3) that he is “able to identify contact information, including names and mailing addresses, related to the individuals to whom the calls were placed, based upon the records that are maintained by phone carriers in their ordinary course of business.”

    Defendants’ critique of Woolfson’s opinion essentially falls into two buckets—(1) disagreements about how he interpreted certain datapoints to reach his specific conclusions; and (2) concerns about the difficulties of his proposed process for identifying class members.

    First, with respect to the underlying data relied upon by Woolfson, the parties agreed that the Ytel CDRs do not include call disposition information that affirmatively indicates if every telephone call placed by FDE actually connected to an active number on the Registry. Because of that, Woolfson determined that an appropriate measure of this critical detail was call duration.

    Specifically, Woolfson sufficiently explained the process he used to query the data and then analyze the output. Basically, the Court found that Defendants attacked the reliability of Woolfson’s conclusions and whether they
    are supported by the data, not the validity of the methodology he employed in forming his opinions.

    Jan Kostyun’s Rebuttal Expert Report

    Defendants offered the opinion of their rebuttal expert, Kostyun, in seeking to bar Woolfson’s testimony.

    Plaintiff contended that Kostyun’s methodology is not reproducible, as evidenced by his deposition testimony that he ran “hundreds and hundreds of queries against the data” which he cannot itemize or reproduce.

    Defendants explained that Kostyun’s analysis “was undertaken in a forensic manner” that involved both “simplistic” and “more complex” queries of the data, and the “entire database and structure” were produced to Plaintiff.

    However, Plaintiff never contended that Kostyun used an unacceptable methodology for the relevant industry. The Daubert inquiry focuses on assessing if Kostyun’s methodology lacks analytically sound bases, not if his rebuttal opinions are correct.

    Held

    The Court denied both Plaintiff’s motion to bar defense expert Jan Kostyun and Defendants’ cross-motion to bar Plaintiff’s expert Aaron Woolfson.

    Key Takeaway:

    Both sides argued at length in their extensive briefs that the opposing expert has erroneously interpreted the relevant data, and as a result, the opinions reached are wrong. But such “arguments about how the selection of data inputs affect the merits of the conclusions produced by an accepted methodology” are substantive considerations rather than proper Daubert challenges.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Anthony V. The Federal Savings Bank Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:21cv2509
    Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Northern
    Order Date: September 23, 2025
  • Telecommunications Expert Witness’ Opinions Regarding 3GPP Availability Admitted

    Telecommunications Expert Witness’ Opinions Regarding 3GPP Availability Admitted

    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.

    Want to know more about the challenges Craig Bishop has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    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