CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-22945-CIV-SCOLA/TORRES

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DECURTIS CORPORATION and 

DECURTIS LLC

Defendants.

DECURTIS LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO 

DECURTIS’ ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 1 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

ii

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Ex. No. Description ECF 

No.

13 Transcript of Deposition of Matthew Lynde dated April 15, 2022 

(hereinafter “Lynde Dep.”)

285-14

14 Transcript of Deposition of Arnold Donald dated January 31, 

2022 (hereinafter “Donald Dep.”)

285-15

17 Expert Report of Matthew Lynde, Ph.D. dated March 1, 2022 

(hereinafter “Lynde Report”)

285-18

18 DeCurtis Strategy Session Offsite Agenda and DeCurtis Due 

Diligence Findings dated June 11, 2019 (DeCurtis_01945577-

795) (hereinafter “DeCurtis_01945577”)

285-19

25 Reply Expert Report of Mary Coleman dated March 31, 2022 

(hereinafter “Coleman Rebuttal Report”)

285-26

29 Transcript of Deposition of John Padgett Vol. 2 dated January 

18, 2022 (hereinafter “Padgett Dep. Vol. 2”)

285-30

31 Expert Report of Mary Coleman dated March 1, 2022 

(hereinafter “Coleman Report”)

285-32

36 Transcript of Deposition of David DeCurtis dated February 3, 

2022 (hereinafter “DeCurtis Dep. Vol. 1”)

285-37

40 Rebuttal Expert Report of Erik de la Iglesia Regarding Validity 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,045,184; 10,049,516; and 10,157,514 

dated March 31, 2022 (hereinafter “de la Iglesia Rebuttal 

Report”)

285-41

41 Email Chain dated October 21, 2014 (DeCurtis_00157407-

157408) (hereinafter “DeCurtis_00157407”)

285-42

50 Statement of Work No. 1 between Carnival Corp. and DeCurtis 

Corp. (CARNIVAL00000265-268) (hereinafter 

“CARNIVAL00000265”)

285-51

80 Transcript of Deposition of John Padgett dated January 17, 2022 

(hereinafter “Padgett Dep. Vol. 1”)

285-81

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 2 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

iii

85 Transcript of Deposition of Douglas Steele Vol. 2 dated January 

14, 2022 (hereinafter “Steele Dep. Vol. 2”)

285-86

86 Transcript of Deposition of Michael Jungen dated January 7, 

2022 (hereinafter “Jungen Dep.”)

285-87

88 Transcript of Deposition of Patrick Mendiuk dated January 19, 

2022 (hereinafter “Mendiuk Dep.”)

285-89

100

 (Shamrock_00005229-5339)

(hereinafter “Shamrock_00005229”)

285-101

128 Transcript of Deposition of Glenn Curtis dated January 12, 2022 

(hereinafter “Curtis Dep.”)

285-129

142 Transcript of Deposition of Jon Engbretsen dated December 21, 

2021 (hereinafter “Engbretsen Dep.”)

299-2

253 Email from Carnival dated August 22, 2016 

(DeCurtis_00159075-159077) (hereinafter 

“DeCurtis_00159075”)

322-3

254 Transcript of Deposition of Douglas Steele Vol. 1 dated January 

13, 2022 (hereinafter “Steele Dep. Vol. 1”)

322-4

258 Gartner, “Magic Quadrant for Indoor Location Services, 

Global,” February 15, 2021 (hereinafter DeCurtis_01418552)

259 (hereinafter 

Shamrock_00005342)

DeCurtis Ex. 5 Ideas and Concepts Developed by EIC Project 

(CARNIVAL00070934-70946)

302-2

DeCurtis Ex. 10 Email from G. Curtis dated January 9, 2015 

(DeCurtis_00242858-242861)

302-2

DeCurtis Ex. 14 Email from G. Curtis dated January 22, 2015 

(DeCurtis_00241867)

302-2

DeCurtis. Ex. 

15

Email from J. Padgett dated January 26, 2015 

(DeCurtis_00242071-242072)

302-2

DeCurtis Ex. 23 Email from Carnival dated January 9, 2015 

(DeCurtis_00157450-157456)

302-2

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 3 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

iv

DeCurtis. Ex. 

55

Transcript of Deposition of Derek Fournier dated January 25, 

2022 (“Fournier Dep. Vol. 1”)

302-2

DeCurtis Ex. 77 Presentation – Project Ocean Discussion Materials dated January 

29, 2020 (CARNIVAL00753743-753809)

302-2

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 4 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

Carnival’s Local Rule 56.1 Reply Statement of Material Facts

75. Disputed. Incorrectly suggests that Mr. Curtis was 

. Ex. 10 (DeCurtis_00242858) ( ). Deposition 

excerpts do not address this SMF’s issues. 

76. Undisputed that Opp. Ex. 14 (DeCurtis_00241867) includes the quoted words. Disputed

because the SMF mischaracterizes the document by omitting Mr. Curtis’s recognition that 

. Disputed that Opp. Ex. 14 identified 

patentable inventions because 

.” Ex. 128

(Curtis Dep.) at 74:13-75:23, 85:7-14, 213:17-214:13.

77. Disputed. Opp. Ex. 15 (DeCurtis_00242071) refers to ,” not

“inventions” or “inventors,” and Mr. Padgett stated that 

. The memo itself states 

 Opp. Ex. 5 (CARNIVAL00070934) at *34. Further disputed 

t. Mr. Curtis 

. Ex. 128 (Curtis Dep.) at 76:13-25, 99:22-100:6. 

78. Disputed that the Curtis Memo is an “Inventions Memo.” See Dkt. 288 at 8-9. Further 

disputed that the Memo is material because the purported “inventions” do not correspond to the 

patents, the extent/nature of Mr. DeCurtis’s purported contributions is not stated, and no fully 

conceived inventions are described. Ex. 40 (de la Iglesia Rebuttal) ¶¶ 1163-75.

79. Disputed. The Curtis memo is not an “Inventions Memo.” See RF 78. Mischaracterized

to wrongly suggest that “inventorship” was objectively accurate, instead of 

. Ex. 128 (Curtis Dep.) at 70:13-71:17. Disputed that 

using a memo for

. Ex. 29 (Padgett Dep. Vol. 2) at 147:8-15.

80. Disputed. Exhibit 5 lacks authenticated metadata, and “access” is not mentioned in the 

purported metadata or material to prosecution. DeCurtis mischaracterizes the purported 

“relevance,” ignoring Mr. Steele’s explanation that

Ex. 85 (Steele Dep. Vol. 2) at 285:3-5. Disputed that Mr. Steele, a non-lawyer, is 

“primarily responsible” because he did not prosecute any patents. This SMF violates SDFL Rule 

56.1(b)(1)(B) for having more than one fact.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 5 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

2

81. Disputed. DeCurtis mischaracterizes 10 pages of testimony into one incorrect sentence. Mr. 

” Ex. 86 (Jungen Dep.) at 179:23-

180:3. Disputed that Mr. Jungen .” Id.

at 190:3-9 (addressing hypothetical). The significance of the “Inventions Memo” discussed in this 

SMF is disputed by the record. See Dkt. 288 at 8-9. 

82. Disputed. Mischaracterizes 27 pages of Messrs. Padgett’s, Steele’s, and Jungen’s testimony 

by ignoring explanations why inventorship was correct. Ex. 29 (Padgett Dep. Vol. 2) at 160:3-

167:23; Ex. 85 (Steele Dep. Vol. 2) at 290:9-309:14; Ex. 86 (Jungen Dep.) at 178:12-179:14. 

Disputed that 

83. Disputed. The vague term “Disney’s related technology” is DeCurtis’s characterization, not 

a fact. Untrue that all “Carnival’s named inventors” worked for Disney or with Mr. DeCurtis. 

E.g., Ex. 88 (Mendiuk Dep.) at 52:4-8, 72:6-8. 

84. Disputed. The two sides remained cordial after the exit. Ex. 253 (DeCurtis_00159075). 

and 

” Ex. 254 (Steele Dep. Vol. 1) at 147:25-13; Ex. 29 (Padgett Dep. Vol. 2) 

at 129:2-16. Disputed because the 7 pages of cited Padgett testimony speak to DeCurtis’s work 

for competitors, not that DeCurtis would be a competitor. Disputed because DeCurtis owed a duty 

to Carnival per the MSA. Disputed because Mr. DeCurtis said he would have assigned his 

inventions to Carnival. E.g., Ex. 36 (DeCurtis Dep. Vol. 1) at 236:21-237:11. Finally, this SMF 

violates SDFL Rule 56.1(b)(1)(B) for having more than one fact. 

85. Disputed. Omits testimony that Assa Abloy witness “

” 

Ex. 142 (Engebretsen Dep.) at 231:10-237:9. Mischaracterizes facts because Assa Abloy 

. Ex. 142 (Engebretsen Dep.) 248:19-249:21. Shoemake Declaration does not 

support this SMF.

86. Disputed. Mischaracterizes 14 pages of testimony because according to Mr. Steele,

Ex. 254 (Steele Dep. Vol. 1) 188:19-190:13. No 

definition for time period of “Mr. Elfstrom’s work,” or what “

” refers to.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 6 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

3

87. Disputed. DeCurtis could not identify his contributions to the claimed inventions. Ex. 36, 

(DeCurtis Dep. Vol. 1) at 201:16-203:8; 203:22-217:2. The term “inventive contributions to the 

Carnival project” is undefined and does not match the testimony cited in support of this SMF or 

contribution to Carnival’s patents. 

88. Disputed. Cited testimony does not say anything about “

.” See Ex. 36 (DeCurtis Dep. Vol. 1) at 210:9-211:7. Undisputed that the cited email chain 

includes those words, but also that Mr. DeCurtis’s idea would require 

. Opp. Ex. 23 (DeCurtis_00157450) at *52. 

89. Disputed. The cited testimony relates to the email in SMF 88, not any purported “Patentable 

invention #9” or any other “invention.” 

90. Disputed. Mr. Padgett testified that 

 Ex. 80 (Padgett 

Dep. Vol. 1) at 233:17-234:15; Ex. 29 (Padgett Dep. Vol. 2) at 179:4-24. The significance of the 

“Inventions Memo” discussed in this SMF is disputed by the record. See Dkt. 288 at 8-9. Finally, 

this SMF violates SDFL Rule 56.1(b)(1)(B) for having more than one fact. 

91. Disputed.

. Ex. 41 (DeCurtis_00157407) at *07; Ex. 128 (Curtis Dep.) at 

54:8-57:16. Mr. Vellon further explained . Ex. 41

(DeCurtis_00157407) at *07. The SMF is immaterial because sleep/wake are not the operating 

modes recited in Carnival’s patents. Ex. 40 (de la Iglesia Rebuttal) ¶ 1216.

92. Undisputed.

93. Undisputed that Mr. DeCurtis sent an email . Disputed to the 

extent the SMF suggests, without any support, any relation between the email and 

. 

94. Undisputed that Mr. Padgett testified that . Disputed

to the extent the SMF suggests the email is 

relevant to a mobile BLE beacon. 

. Ex. 128 (Curtis Dep.) at 51:24-53:7, 198:24-199:8. 

Disputed because the cites to the DeCurtis deposition do not support the SMF. 

95. Disputed. The partial quote omits 

Further 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 7 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

4

disputed to the extent the SMF suggests is a material fact without identifying 

any asserted claims that recite it.

96. Disputed. . Ex. 80 (Padgett 

Dep. Vol. 1) at 167:22-168:4. The SMF thus distorts the relevance and value of

. Disputed because the cited documents do not support this SMF.

97. Disputed. While not material, DeCurtis misstates the record evidence. Mr. Donald testified 

that 

Ex. 80 (Padgett Dep. Vol. I) at 38:17-38:19; Ex. 14

(Donald Dep.) at 18:17-19:12; 99:5-100:5. 

98. Disputed.

. See, Carnival SMF at Nos. 53-55.

100. Undisputed that Dr. Lynde submitted a report, which speaks for itself. As reflected, in 

Carnival’s Daubert briefing it is disputed that Dr. Lynde conducted a hypothetical monopolist test 

that supports his two proffered relevant antitrust markets. Dkt. 286 at 14-16; see also Ex. 25 

(Coleman Rebuttal Report) ¶¶ 59-85.

101. Undisputed that Dr. Lynde submitted a report, which speaks for itself. As reflected, in 

Carnival’s Daubert briefing it is disputed that a review of the record or the competitive landscape 

supports his two proffered relevant antitrust markets. Dkt. 286 at 9-14; Dr. Coleman’s Rebuttal 

Report contains her analysis of the relevant market. Ex. 25 (Coleman Rebuttal Report) ¶¶ 15-85, 

103-09, 118-39, 174-78. Her initial report . Ex. 31 

(Coleman Report) at ¶¶ 26, 33-41 ( ). 

The additional testimony and documents cited do not support Dr. Lynde’s conclusions but rather 

. 

102. Disputed. DeCurtis cites no support for its initial statement. Moreover, DeCurtis contends 

that 

Ex. 34 (Lynde Rebuttal Report) at ¶¶ 34, 120. Undisputed that DeCurtis Ex. 77

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 8 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

5

. DeCurtis Ex. 77 

(CARNIVAL00375784-850) at 806, 814. As Dr. Lynde testified, 

(Ex. 13 (Lynde Dep.) at 236:4-15) 

(id. at 245:11-250:2, 260:20-261:1).

103. Undisputed that 

 Note however, that 

.

104. Undisputed that other technologies offer some of the features and services of OCEAN and 

DXP. As reflected in Carnival’s Daubert briefing, Carnival disputes the conclusion that other

technologies are not “economic substitutes.” Dkt. 286 at 9-14. The record evidence demonstrates 

otherwise. Carnival Statement of Material Facts at Nos. 64, 66-70; Ex. 25 (Coleman Rebuttal 

Report) ¶¶ 15-85, 103-09, 118-39, 174-78; Ex. 100 (Shamrock_00005229) at 5272 

; Ex. 18 (DeCurtis_01945577) at 597 

616

Ex. 25 (Coleman Rebuttal Report) ¶¶ 36 

n.174 

Ex. 258 (DeCurtis_01418552) at 552-77 

Ex. 259 (Shamrock_00005342) at 5362 

105. Undisputed that Dr. Lynde’s report asserts such opinions. That document speaks for itself. 

As reflected, in Carnival’s Daubert briefing it is disputed that Dr. Lynde’s regression shows a price 

increase or supports a distinct market. Dkt. 286 at 9-16; Ex. 25 (Coleman Rebuttal) ¶¶ 140-99. 

Finally, this SMF violates SDFL Rule 56.1(b)(1)(B) for having more than one fact.

106. Disputed. . Ex. 80 (Padgett Dep. Vol. 1) at 

156:8-11. DeCurtis’ use of “[a]t the time” is vague and undefined.

107. Disputed. DeCurtis was expressly hired to, for example, “

. Ex. 50 (SOW #1) (emphasis added).

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 9 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

6

Dated: May 17, 2022 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 

By: /s/ Diana Marie Fassbender 

 

Diana Marie Fassbender 

Florida Bar No. 0017095

dszego@orrick.com

Steven J. Routh (pro hac vice)

T. Vann Pearce, Jr. (pro hac vice)

Eileen M. Cole (pro hac vice)

Jay Jurata (pro hac vice)

Emily Luken (pro hac vice)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Columbia Center, 1152 15th Street, N.W.

 Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

 Tel: (202) 339-8533

Jorge Espinosa

 Fla. Bar No. 779032

 jorge.espinosa@gray-robinson.com

 Robert R. Jimenez

 Fla. Bar. No. 72020

 robert.jimenez@gray-robinson.com

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200

Miami, FL 33131

Phone: (305) 416-6880

Facsimile: (305) 416-6887

 

 Robert L. Uriarte (pro hac vice)

 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

 Tel: (650) 289-7105

 Olivia Clements (pro hac vice) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

51 West 52nd Street

New York, NY 10019-6142

Tel: (212) 506-5000

Johannes Hsu (pro hac vice)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

2050 Main Street

Suite 1100

Irvine, CA 92614-8255

Tel: (949) 567-6700

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 10 of 11
CONTAINS INFORMATION MARKED “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” UNDER THE 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

7

David R. Medina (pro hac vice)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

777 South Figueroa Street

Suite 3200

Los Angeles. CA 90017-5855

Tel: (213) 629-2020

Sheryl Garko (pro hac vice)

Laura Najemy (pro hac vice)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

222 Berkeley Street

Suite 2000

Boston, MA 02116

(617) 880-1800

Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

Carnival Corporation

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2022 Page 11 of 11