Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-66/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 DENYING MLC'S THIRD 

DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH 

MCALEXANDER 

Re: Dkt. No. 425

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

forth below, the Court DENIES MLC’s third Daubert motion to exclude Mr. McAlexander’s 

testimony, without prejudice to specific objections at trial.

MLC seeks to preclude McAlexander from offering his rebuttal opinion that “the 

technological value of the ’571 Patent is substantially less than half the value of the remaining 

portfolio.” McAlexander Rebuttal Expert Report ¶ 383 (Dkt. No. 425-2).1 MLC asserts that this 

opinion should be excluded “[b]ecause Mr. McAlexander neither read the claims of these patents, 

nor analyzed their scope, he simply is not [in] a position to evaluate the worth of the ’571 Patent 

relative to the rest of patents in MLC’s portfolio.” Mot. at 1. MLC contrasts McAlexander’s 

valuation opinion with that of MLC’s expert, Dr. Lee, who MLC claims “considered the claims 

 

1

 MLC’s technical expert, Dr. Lee, has opined that the “vast majority” of the technical value 

of MLC’s U.S. patent portfolio is attributable to the ‘571 patent. Lee Opening Report ¶ 236 (Dkt. 

No. 370-8). MLC’s damages expert, Mr. Milani, relies in part on Dr. Lee’s opinion regarding the 

technical value of the ‘571 patent in support of his opinion that “at least 50% (and potentially much 

more) of the licensing value of the MLCIP Patent Portfolio is attributable to the technology of the 

‘571 Patent.” Milani Report at 66 (Dkt. No. 422-4). 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 640 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 3
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

from each of these patents and compared them with the claims of ’571 Patent . . . [and] [o]nly after 

considering what each patent covered . . . [made] an assessment of the ’571 Patent’s value relative 

to the rest of the portfolio.” Id. at 2-3. While MLC concedes that Mr. McAlexander “may be in a 

position to critique Dr. Lee’s methodology,” MLC contends that “Mr. McAlexander simply did not 

perform the work expected of an expert to apportion the value of ’571 Patent within MLC’s 

portfolio.” Id. at 3. 

In response, Micron contends that “Mr. McAlexander’s rebuttal report spends eleven 

paragraphs explaining the flaws in Dr. Lee’s analysis, which leads to the common sense and 

conservative opinion that the ‘technological value of the ’571 Patent is substantially less than half 

of the value of the remaining portfolio.’” Opp’n at 1 (Dkt. No. 487). Micron refers to paragraphs 

373-3832of the McAlexander Rebuttal Report to demonstrate that Mr. McAlexander considered the 

other patents in MLC’s portfolio. Micron also contends that Mr. McAlexander’s opinion is proper 

insofar as it is a critique of Dr. Lee’s valuation opinion. Micron asserts “Mr. McAlexander’s 

ultimate conclusion that the ’571 Patent is substantially less than half the value of the remaining 

portfolio is grounded in Mr. McAlexander’s analysis showing that Dr. Lee fails to show the ’571 

Patent is any more valuable than any other MLC patent.” Id. at 2. 

The Court concludes that if Dr. Lee is permitted to testify about the technical value of the 

‘571 patent,3 McAlexander will also be permitted to testify about his opinions critiquing and 

rebutting Dr. Lee’s valuation methodology, including his opinion about the relative value of the 

‘571 patent. MLC’s objection that McAlexander did not review all 30 of MLC’s U.S. patents to 

reach his conclusion about the value of the ‘571 patent goes to the weight and not the admissibility 

of his rebuttal opinion. Even though McAlexander does not analyze each of the other 29 U.S. 

patents, he explains why he disagrees with Dr. Lee’s valuation of the ‘571 patent and he discusses 

features of the patent portfolio (such as the fact that all of the patents have only one of two versions 

 

2

 McAlexander’s opinion about the diminished value of the ‘571 patent as a result of the 

Court’s supplemental claim construction, set forth in Paragraphs 380-381 of his rebuttal report, is 

the subject of MLC’s pending second Daubert motion to exclude McAlexander’s testimony. 

3

 Dr. Lee’s testimony is the subject of a pending Daubert motion. 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 640 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 3
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

of a specification directed at multi-level cell memory and that the later of the two specifications –

which the ‘571 patent does not have – added some new matter). See McAlexander Rebuttal Report 

¶¶ 375-376. Accordingly, the Court DENIES MLC’s third Daubert motion to exclude 

McAlexander’s testimony.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2019, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 640 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 3