Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-69/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MLC'S FIRST 

DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE 

MCALEXANDER

Re: Dkt. No. 423

On June 6, 2019, the Court held a hearing on numerous pretrial motions. For the reasons set 

forth below, MLC’s first Daubert motion to exclude testimony of Mr. McAlexander is GRANTED 

in part and DENIED in part.

MLC seeks to preclude Mr. McAlexander from offering certain testimony related to noninfringing alternatives. Specifically, MLC seeks to exclude McAlexander’s testimony that the 

accused products, certain NOR-architecture products, and undisclosed third-party products are 

examples of non-infringing alternatives. Mot. at 2 (Dkt. No. 423). MLC also contends that

McAlexander did not perform an analysis of the “acceptability” of non-infringing alternatives and 

that McAlexander’s opinions regarding the value of the ‘571 patent are irrelevant. 

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that Micron asserts that McAlexander must be 

permitted to testify in order to rebut Dr. Lee’s “essentiality” opinions, such as his opinion that 

“without the technology of the ‘571 Patent, competitors in the industry would be unable to provide 

a commercially acceptable multi-level cell memory product to the market.” Lee Report ¶ 214 (Dkt. 

No. 370-8). The Court agrees. Although the Court denied Micron’s Daubert motion to exclude Dr. 

Lee’s “essentiality” opinions, in the Court’s view Micron raised a number of substantial challenges 

to Dr. Lee’s opinions about the importance and value of the ‘571 patent. It was a very close question 

as to whether those opinions were “shaky but admissible” as opposed to unsupported and unreliable. 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 658 Filed 07/08/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court ultimately concluded that Dr. Lee’s valuation and “essentiality” opinions can be tested 

through cross-examination and through the rebuttal testimony of McAlexander, and thus the Court 

will permit McAlexander to testify regarding non-infringing alternatives and the commercial 

acceptability of those alternatives. 

MLC does not contest all of McAlexander’s opinions regarding non-infringing alternatives 

(such as his opinion about SLC). Micron’s opposition also states that McAlexander will not be 

providing certain challenged opinions, and thus McAlexander will not testify that the accused 

devices constitute non-infringing alternatives, nor will he testify that NOR multi-level memory per 

se constitutes a non-infringing alternative. Opp’n at 1-3 (Dkt. No. 485). Similarly, Micron agrees 

that McAlexander will not identify specific third-party products as non-infringing alternatives. Id. 

at 2-3. Based upon these representations, and because most of MLC’s objections go to the weight 

and not the admissibility of McAlexander’s testimony, the Court DENIES MLC’s motion. 

However, the Court agrees with MLC that Lee may not testify that the withdrawn Design ID 

is a non-infringing alternative because McAlexander testified at his deposition that he did not 

analyze the withdrawn Design ID when he conducted his infringement analysis. McAlexander Tr. 

at 240-241 (Dkt. No. 534-3). This ruling does not preclude Micron from presenting other evidence, 

if admissible, regarding the withdrawn Design ID. In addition, the Court notes Micron’s assertion 

that “Mr. McAlexander should be free to point out that Micron remains free to sell [Micron’s NOR 

multi-level devices] without MLC’s infringement threat.” Opp’n at 2-3. The Court is inclined to 

agree with MLC that such testimony is impermissible. However, the Court will reserve ruling on 

that issue until after the final pretrial conference, and the Court directs the parties to be prepared to 

address this question at the July 16, 2019 hearing. Finally, the Court agrees with MLC that to the 

extent McAlexander testifies that prior art patents and applications (such as Kitamura) would be 

non-infringing, he may do so but he may not refer to those patents and applications as “products.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 658 Filed 07/08/19 Page 2 of 2