Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03260-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SPACE DATA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHABET INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03260-BLF 

ORDER ON DAUBERT MOTIONS

[Re: ECF 480, 484]

The parties to this action are Plaintiff Space Data Corporation (“Space Data”) and 

Defendants Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, and Loon LLC (collectively, “Google”). Space Data 

alleges1that Google infringes Space Data’s patents and unlawfully uses Space Data’s confidential 

information and trade secrets. See generally 5AC, ECF 434. In preparation for trial which is set 

to begin on August 5, 2019, each side submitted a Daubert motion to exclude two of the opposing 

side’s experts. See ECF 480; ECF 484. The Court held a Daubert hearing (“the Hearing”) on 

May 31, 2019. With respect to each side’s Daubert motions, the Court rules as follows, for the 

reasons below and as stated on the record at the Hearing. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that a qualified expert may testify 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 

 

1 For additional background, see the Court’s summary judgment order at ECF 524 (572). 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 8
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

has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. In 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), the Supreme Court held 

that Rule 702 requires the district court to act as a gatekeeper to “ensure that any and all scientific 

testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. 

Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999), the Supreme Court clarified that the “basic gatekeeping 

obligation” articulated in Daubert applies not only to scientific testimony but to all expert 

testimony. The Supreme Court also made clear that the reliability inquiry is a flexible one, and 

“whether Daubert’s specific factors are, or are not, reasonable measures of reliability in a 

particular case is a matter that the law grants the trial judge broad latitude to determine.” Id.

at 153; see also Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

“Daubert and Rule 702 are safeguards against unreliable or irrelevant opinions, not 

guarantees of correctness.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 854 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011). So long as an expert’s methodology is sound and her opinions 

satisfy the requirements of Rule 702, underlying factual disputes and how much weight to accord 

the expert’s opinion are questions for the jury. Micro Chem., 317 F.3d at 1392; Primiano v. Cook, 

598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir. 2010). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Google’s Daubert Motion (ECF 484)

Google moves to exclude certain opinions of Space Data’s damages expert Dr. Christine 

Meyer and Space Data’s technical expert Dr. Sam Pullen. See Google’s Motion at 1, ECF 484. 

The challenged opinions concern U.S. Patent No. 9,678,193 (“the ’193 patent”) and U.S. Patent 

No. 9,643,706 (“the ’706 patent”). See generally id. However, on May 9, 2019, the Court granted 

Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’193 patent. See Summary 

Judgment Order at 21, ECF 524 (572). In addition, Space Data’s opposition affirmatively moots 

issues raised in Google’s Daubert motion with respect to the ’706 patent. See Space Data’s Opp’n 

at 10, ECF 506. At the Hearing, Google confirmed that its Daubert motion contains no live 

issues. See Hearing Tr. at 2:24–3:1, ECF 548. Accordingly, Google’s Daubert motion is hereby 

TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 8
3

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

B. Space Data’s Daubert Motion (ECF 480)

Space Data moves to exclude certain opinions and testimony of Google’s trade secret and 

patent infringement expert Dr. John Hansman and Google’s damages expert Dr. Daniel 

Ingberman. See Space Data’s Motion at 1–2, ECF 479-18. For each expert, Space Data 

challenges both trade secret opinions and opinions pertaining to the ’193 patent. For the reasons 

previously discussed, Space Data’s motion with respect to opinions pertaining to the ’193 patent is 

hereby TERMINATED AS MOOT. Thus, the remaining issues concern only trade secret 

opinions. The Court addresses each expert in turn. 

1. Dr. Hansman

Space Data challenges two categories of Dr. Hansman’s opinions: (1) Dr. Hansman’s 

“rebuttal” of Dr. Meyer’s liability assumptions concerning trade secret misappropriation; and 

(2) Dr. Hansman’s opinions regarding Loon’s independent development. See Space Data’s 

Motion at 5, 8. Each category of challenged opinions is discussed in turn. 

a. Dr. Hansman’s Rebuttal to Dr. Meyer’s Liability Assumptions 

Dr. Meyer is Space Data’s damages expert. As part of her report on damages for trade 

secret misappropriation, Dr. Meyer assumed liability as a predicate to her damages analysis. See

Space Data’s Motion at 5; see also Meyer Damages Report, Ex. 4 to Kamber Decl., ECF 497-5. 

Space Data points out that Dr. Meyer qualified her description of trade secret misappropriation 

with phrases such as “I understand,” Space Data “contends,” and Space Data “alleges.” See, e.g., 

Meyer Damages Report ¶ 57. Space Data argues that because Dr. Meyer “assumed liability” and 

did “not opine[] on liability,” Dr. Hansman’s “technical rebuttal report” of Dr. Meyer’s liability 

assumptions concerning trade secret misappropriation is improper and should be excluded. See

Space Data’s Motion at 5–6. More specifically, Space Data argues that it had no obligation to 

provide an opening expert report on trade secret misappropriation and that Google “ambush[ed]” 

Space Data with Dr. Hansman’s “untimely expert opinions.” See id. at 6–7. 

From a procedural standpoint, Google responds that Space Data’s motion on this topic “is 

not a Daubert challenge [but instead] a discovery dispute [falling under Rule 26] that Space Data 

could and properly should have raised months ago.” See Google’s Opp’n at 3, ECF 497-4. In its 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 3 of 8
4

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

reply brief, Space Data acknowledges that this is “a dispute about compliance with this Court’s 

Scheduling Order and fair process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.” See Space Data’s Reply at 1, 

ECF 519-3. The Court agrees that the parties’ dispute over Dr. Hansman’s rebuttal to Dr. Meyer 

is a Rule 26 issue; however, as discussed at the Hearing, the Court finds Space Data’s motion is 

procedurally warranted at this stage. Accordingly, the Court turns to Google’s substantive 

opposition. 

From a substantive standpoint, Google argues that “Dr. Meyer devotes more than a dozen 

pages to recounting her factual assumptions and understandings regarding Space Data’s 

misappropriation and [NDA] breach claims.” See Google’s Opp’n at 4 (quoting and discussing 

multiple examples of such assumptions in Dr. Meyer’s expert report on damages). Thus, Google 

contends, “Dr. Meyer expressly premises her misappropriation and breach damages opinions on 

her understanding of Space Data’s alleged trade secrets, the purported value and importance of 

those trade secrets to Google, and Google’s alleged misuse of them.” See Google’s Opp’n at 5

(quoting and discussing ¶¶ 211, 215, 216, and 220 of Dr. Meyer’s report). Google asserts that 

“[i]n his [rebuttal] report, Dr. Hansman addresses, and disproves, the specific factual 

understandings and assumptions underlying Dr. Meyer’s opinions.” See Google’s Opp’n at 5 

(citing Dr. Hansman Rebuttal Report ¶¶ 322–82, Ex. 3 to Hosie Decl., ECF 479-21). Google 

contends that therefore, “[b]ecause Dr. Hansman addresses the very same subject matter as Dr. 

Meyer, [his opinion] is appropriate rebuttal.” See Google’s Opp’n at 5. 

As discussed at the Hearing, the Court does not find that exclusion of Dr. Hansman’s 

rebuttal report is warranted under the circumstances presented here. In Space Data’s view, the 

opinions in Dr. Hansman’s rebuttal report should have been disclosed by the initial expert 

disclosure deadline but were not and are therefore untimely. See Space Data’s Motion at 6–7. 

However, it is not a defendant’s obligation to make an ex ante rebuttal of a plaintiff’s hypothetical 

and undisclosed liability theories, which is effectively what Space Data suggests Google needed to 

have done here. Such an obligation would be fundamentally unfair in requiring the defendant’s 

expert to “shadowbox” or attack “straw man” arguments in advance of seeing the plaintiff’s theory 

and proof of liability. 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 4 of 8
5

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

Here, leading up to the initial expert disclosure deadline, Space Data indicated that it 

would be serving an opening technical expert report on misappropriation. See Amended 

07/03/2018 Resp. to Interrog. Nos. 14 & 21 at 4, 8, 32, Ex. 6 to Kamber Decl., ECF 497-8. 

However, Space Data did not serve any such report. While Space Data was not required to submit 

a technical expert report and may prove liability for trade secret misappropriation through fact 

witnesses, this approach does not insulate Dr. Meyer’s liability assumptions from rebuttal. Rather, 

“challenging the assumptions of an expert witness’ report is a permissible topic of rebuttal 

testimony.” See Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc., 2015 WL 2268498, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 

2015); see also Laflamme v. Safeway, Inc., 2010 WL 3522378, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 2, 2010) 

(stating that rebuttal reports that “address the initial experts’ assertions by questioning their 

assumptions and methods” are proper under Rule 26). The Court finds that Dr. Meyer’s report 

intertwines damages analysis with the shape, form, and effect of particular aspects of the alleged

and assumed misuse. Accordingly, Dr. Hansman’s rebuttal report that addresses specific 

assertions and assumptions in Dr. Meyer’s report regarding Google’s liability for trade secret 

misappropriation is permissible. 

In arguing to the contrary, Space Data primarily relies on Clear-View Techs., Inc. v. 

Rasnick, 2015 WL 3509384, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2015). See Space Data’s Motion at 6–7; 

Space Data’s Reply at 2. As discussed at the Hearing, Clear-View bears no resemblance to the 

instant action and is wholly inapposite. In Clear-View, the defendant ran afoul of Rule 26 by 

appending an initially-undisclosed expert’s technical report to another expert’s rebuttal report in 

an attempt to offer evidence to prove counterclaims and affirmative defenses, on which the 

defendant bore the burden of proof. See 2015 WL 3509384, at *3–*4. None of these 

circumstances applies here. Accordingly, Clear-View does not support Space Data’s challenge to 

Dr. Hansman’s rebuttal report. 

In sum, Space Data’s motion to exclude Dr. Hansman’s rebuttal of Dr. Meyer’s liability 

assumptions concerning trade secret misappropriation is DENIED. However, Dr. Hansman may

only rebut testimony that Dr. Meyer actually offers. In other words, Dr. Hansman is limited to 

rebutting specific factual understandings and assumptions concerning liability underlying damages 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 5 of 8
6

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

opinions introduced by Dr. Meyer. 

b. Dr. Hansman’s “Independent Development” Opinion 

Space Data also seeks to exclude Dr. Hansman’s opinion on independent development 

based on Google’s failure to disclose these opinions in an opening report and a lack of foundation. 

See Space Data’s Motion at 8. Google states that “Dr. Hansman provides no ‘independent 

development’ opinion in his report.” See Google’s Opp’n at 7–8, ECF 497-4. Google further 

states that presuming Space Data does not open the door at trial, “Google does not intend to have 

Dr. Hansman offer [the independent development] opinion he provided in response to Space 

Data’s deposition questioning.” See Google’s Opp’n at 9, ECF 497-4. In reply, Space Data

acknowledges that “[t]his concession moots this issue.” See Space Data’s Reply at 3, ECF 519-3. 

Accordingly, Space Data’s motion to exclude Dr. Hansman’s opinions regarding Loon’s 

independent development is hereby TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

2. Dr. Ingberman 

Dr. Ingberman is Google’s damages expert. Space Data challenges Dr. Ingberman’s 

opinions regarding no trade secret misuse on two grounds. See Space Data’s Motion at 16. First, 

Space Data argues that “Dr. Ingberman has no independent basis for opining on trade secret 

misappropriation, or its absence, and he should not serve as a conduit for Dr. Hansman’s trade 

secret pseudo-rebuttal.” Id. Second, Space Data argues that “Dr. Ingberman, an economist, [does 

not] have any foundation to argue what is and is not improper trade secret or confidential 

information misuse.” Id. Google counters that “Space Data misconstrues the substance of [the] 

opinions” and that the “actual focus of Dr. Ingberman’s opinion . . . is the alleged value of Space 

Data’s asserted trade secrets, not their misuse by Google.” See Google’s Opp’n at 16 (emphasis in 

original); see also Ingberman Expert Report, Ex. 13 to Hosie Decl., ECF 479-25. The Court 

addresses each of Space Data’s purported grounds for exclusion of Dr. Ingberman in turn. 

Space Data’s first argument—essentially that Dr. Ingberman may not rebut Dr. Meyer’s 

liability assumptions—is covered by Space Data’s motion with respect to Dr. Hansman, as Space 

Data acknowledged at the Hearing, see Hearing Tr. at 12:5–8. Accordingly, this argument fails 

for the reasons discussed above with respect to Dr. Hansman’s rebuttal report, subject to the same 

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 6 of 8
7

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

conditions. 

Second, Space Data argues that Dr. Ingberman has no foundation to opine on trade secret 

or confidential information misuse because he is an economist, not a technical expert. See Space 

Data’s Motion at 16. As discussed at the Hearing, Dr. Ingberman may testify on trade secret 

misuse as it pertains to the value of Space Data’s trade secrets, but only at a high level. In other 

words, Dr. Ingberman may offer his opinions on the value of the trade secrets in question and may 

build in and discuss the assumptions on which he relies. Likewise, Dr. Ingberman may rebut 

Dr. Meyer’s methodology at a high level—such as opining on what Dr. Meyer failed to properly 

account for in forming her opinions or solidifying her assumptions. However, Dr. Ingberman may 

not testify that a given trade secret has no value because it is not a trade secret—such testimony 

falls outside the purview of damages. For example, Dr. Ingberman may not offer testimony that in 

his opinion the publicly available information enabled Google to achieve the same result, 

independent of Space Data’s trade secrets. At the Hearing, Google confirmed that Dr. Ingberman 

would not offer such testimony with respect to Space Data’s technical trade secrets. See Hearing 

Tr. at 18:18–23. Google shall be bound by this representation. 

With respect to Space Data’s financial trade secrets, Google argued at the Hearing that 

Dr. Ingberman is qualified to testify as to what is and what is not a financial trade secret. See 

Hearing Tr. at 19:5–15. As discussed at the Hearing, the Court finds Dr. Ingberman generally 

qualified to opine on whether the financial secrets are in fact trade secrets, but that Dr. Ingberman 

was not disclosed for this purpose. Accordingly, Dr. Ingberman shall not be permitted to offer 

testimony on Space Data’s financial trade secrets (or technical trade secrets) where the testimony 

concerns whether the asserted trade secret is or is not a trade secret. 

In sum, Space Data’s motion to exclude Dr. Ingberman’s opinions regarding no trade 

secret misuse is GRANTED IN PART (with respect to testimony as to what is or is not a trade 

secret) and DENIED IN PART (with respect to the remainder, subject to the conditions herein). 

//

//

//

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 7 of 8
8

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

III. ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons and as discussed on the record at the May 31, 2019 hearing, the 

parties’ Daubert motions are decided as follows: 

Google’s motion: TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

Space Data’s motion to exclude Dr. Hansman’s 

rebuttal to Dr. Meyer’s liability assumptions: DENIED. 

Space Data’s motion to exclude Dr. Ingberman’s

opinions regarding no trade secret misuse: GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART subject to the conditions 

outlined above in the Court’s 

discussion of Dr. Ingberman. 

The remainder of Space Data’s motion: TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

As discussed at the Hearing, Space Data shall identify which specific paragraphs of 

Dr. Ingberman’s report (that discuss what is or is not a financial trade secret) are subject to

exclusion based on the instant order. This submission is due no later than July 3, 2019. Should 

Google object to any of the paragraphs identified by Space Data, Google shall file a response no 

later than July 10, 2019. Each submission is limited to two pages. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03260-BLF Document 580 Filed 06/25/19 Page 8 of 8