IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, 

INC., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00481-ADA-DTG 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN OPINIONS 

OF STAN MCCLELLAN, PH.D

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 18
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page

I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1

II. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2

III. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE DR. MCCLELLAN’S APPORTIONMENT 

ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT IS ARBITRARY, FLAWED, AND UNRELIABLE ..............2

A. Dr. McClellan’s “Methodology” Is No More Than Ipse Dixit ..................................2

B. Dr. McClellan’s “Best Estimates” Are Arbitrary and Unsound ................................5

C. Dr. McClellan Failed to Apportion Out (1) the Value of the ’800 Patent to 

the Accused Feature in Prior Art Versions of vSphere, and (2) the Value of 

the Invalid Claims of the ’800 and ’133 Patents .......................................................7

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 18
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

CASES

Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 

 2020 WL 5106845, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) ........................................................................8 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 

509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...................................................................................................................3 

Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., 

 2017 WL 1322555, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2017) ..................................................................8 

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 

879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................7 

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 

522 U.S. 136 (1997) ...................................................................................................................2 

GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Commc’ns Ltd., 

2016 WL 2643003 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2016) .............................................................................5 

Good Tech. Corp. v. Mobileiron, Inc., 

2015 WL 4090431 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2015) ..............................................................................8 

GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc., 

2014 WL 1494247 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014) .......................................................................3, 6 

Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 

685 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................5 

Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Lifecor Corp., 

2017 WL 3140798 (W.D. Pa. July 25, 2017) ............................................................................2 

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., 

694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3, 4 

NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 

2020 WL 1274985 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020) ...................................................................2, 3, 5 

Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., 

2015 WL 349197 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) ..............................................................................3 

ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 

594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................10 

Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................4 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 18
iii 

Syneron Med. Ltd. v. Invasix, Inc., 

2018 WL 4696969 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018) ...........................................................................9 

WhereverTv, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 

2022 WL 2115487 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2022) .............................................................................8 

RULES

Fed. R. Evid. 702 .............................................................................................................................3 

Fed. R. Evid. 702(d) .........................................................................................................................5 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 18
iv 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Abbreviation Term 

’133 U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 

’360 U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 

’800 U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 

’800 Motion Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of 

the ’800 Patent 

Asserted Patents ’133, ’360, and ’800 patents 

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, 

Inc.

DMPO Dynamic Multi-Path Optimization 

DRS Distributed Resource Scheduler

EPR Ex parte reexamination 

IPR Inter partes review 

NetIOC Network I/O Control 

Plaintiff / WSOU WSOU Investments, LLC 

PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office 

Storage DRS Storage Distributed Resource Scheduler 

USPTO U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

Weinstein Motion 

to Exclude 

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy 

Weinstein’s Report 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 18
v 

TABLE OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit Document 

A Transcript of November 23, 2022 Deposition of Stan McClellan, Ph.D. 

(“McClellan Nov. Tr.”) 

B Expert Report of Stan McClellan, Ph.D., served on October 3, 2022 (“’360 

Inf. Rpt.”) 

C Expert Report of Stan McClellan, Ph.D., served on October 3, 2022 (“’133 

Inf. Rpt.”) 

D Expert Report of Stan McClellan, Ph.D., served on October 3, 2022 (“’800 

Inf. Rpt.”) 

E Expert Report of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D., served on November 4, 2022 (“Jeffay 

Reb. Rpt.”) 

F Transcript of December 1, 2022 Deposition of Roy Weinstein (“Weinstein 

Tr.”) 

G U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 

H Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable, 

VMware et al. v. WSOU Investments, LLC (IPR2021-00572) (September 1, 

2022) (“PTAB FWD”) 

I Expert Report of Roy Weinstein, served on October 3, 2022 (“Weinstein 

Rpt.”) 

J H. Stern Email to Defendants, dated December 13, 2022 (“H. Stern Email”) 

K Final Rejection, EPR No. 90/014,800 (April 8, 2022) (“EPR Rejection”) 

L Transcript of December 12, 2022 Deposition of Stan McClellan, Ph.D. 

(“McClellan Dec. Tr.”) 

M Transcript of May 5, 2022 Deposition of Paul Turner (“Turner Tr.”) 

N Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, issued November 16, 2022 for ’133 

patent (“Reexam Certificate”) 

O Exhibit 2 to Expert Report of Stan McClellan, Ph.D., served on October 3, 

2022 (“’360 Inf. Rpt. Exhibit 2”) 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 6 of 18
1 

Dr. McClellan’s apportionment analysis for all three Asserted Patents fails on two separate 

grounds, each of which is reason alone to exclude his apportionment opinions as to all three 

patents: (1) he employs an ipse dixit “methodology” to justify making up his arbitrary 

apportionment percentages; and (2) his “application” of that methodology is full of flawed 

assumptions and conclusory statements. A third ground exists to exclude his analysis for the ’800 

and ’133 patents: he fails to account for the value of the allegedly infringing products’ 

noninfringing features, including those that existed even before the allegedly infringing features 

were added, and he fails to apportion based on the distinct features of the remaining claims, as 

opposed to the generic features from the (previously asserted) claims invalidated by the USPTO. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Dr. McClellan’s apportionment analysis has four steps. 

. Ex. B (’360 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 258; Ex. C (’133 Inf. Rpt.) 

¶ 189; Ex. D (’800 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 643. 

. Id. 

 Ex. B (’360 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 263. 

. Ex. C (’133 Inf. Rpt.) 

¶ 189. 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 7 of 18
2 

 

Ex. B (’360 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 258; Ex. C (’133 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 189; Ex. D (’800 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 643.1 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Defendants incorporate by reference the Legal Standard section from their concurrently 

filed Motion to Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Report. 

III. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE DR. MCCLELLAN’S APPORTIONMENT 

ANALYSIS BECAUSE IT IS ARBITRARY, FLAWED, AND UNRELIABLE 

A. Dr. McClellan’s “Methodology” Is No More Than Ipse Dixit

For his apportionment analysis (using the same methodology for all three Asserted Patents), 

Dr. McClellan does not employ a scientifically rigorous or reliable methodology. 

 Ex. L (McClellan Dec. Tr.) 691:21–

692:11; Ex. A (McClellan Nov. Tr.) 331:17–24. “[N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules 

of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data 

only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). Courts 

routinely exclude expert opinions on apportionment for failing to employ a reliable methodology. 

See NetFuel, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 2020 WL 1274985, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020) 

(excluding “apportionments, and all opinions relying on the figures” as not backed by “sufficient 

facts or data” or by “reliable principles and methods”); Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll 

Lifecor Corp., 2017 WL 3140798, at *4 (W.D. Pa. July 25, 2017) (excluding opinion that provided 

“no objective support for his 50% apportionment rate” and precluding testimony that the patented 

features were a “significant driver” and “majority of” the value of the accused products). 

 

1

. Ex. I (Weinstein Rpt.) ¶¶ 99–100, 120. 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 8 of 18
3 

Dr. McClellan entirely fails to analyze the relative technical contributions of the Asserted 

Patents to vSphere or SD-WAN; rather, his apportionment percentages are simply “plucked out of 

thin air based on vague qualitative notions of the relative importance of the [accused technology].” 

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 69 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

See, e.g., Ex. 

B (’360 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 259 & n.4; see also Ex. A (McClellan Nov. Tr.) 329:11–330:9 

Ex. F (Weinstein Tr.) 152:23–153:3. 

. B (McClellan ’360 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 259 & n.4. 

It is clear, however, that “‘experience’ does not constitute ‘sufficient facts or data’ or 

‘reliable principles and methods.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc., 2014 WL 1494247, at *5 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 16, 2014) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702). “‘[E]xperience’ cannot be tested or ‘subjected to 

peer review and publication,’ nor is there a ‘known or potential rate of error.’” Id. (citing Daubert 

v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593–94 (1993)); see also NetFuel, 2020 WL 1274985, 

at *7 (excluding apportionment opinion based on the expert’s “experience in computer network 

and security,” “[his] knowledge of the nature and function of [the technology],” and “[his] 

knowledge and understanding of the Accused Products”); Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., 2015 WL 

349197, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) (excluding opinion of expert who “cite[d] her 

‘experience’—an abstraction not visible to the eyes of the Court, the jury, and opposing counsel, 

or testable in the crucible of cross-examination”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 9 of 18
4 

Yet, here, Dr. McClellan’s methodology solely relies on his “experience.” 

 Ex. L (McClellan Dec. 

Tr.) 685:9–686:6. 

 Id. at 685:9–14. 

 Id. at 686:7–687:1. 

. See Summit 6, LLC v. 

Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

It is evident that Dr. McClellan’s “methodology” is to make up numbers based simply on 

his subjective, untestable, seemingly arbitrary determinations “based on vague qualitative notions 

of the relative importance of the [accused technology].” LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 69. 

. Ex. A (McClellan Nov. Tr.) 241:22–242:1. 

Id. at 243:5–11. 

Id. at 244:13–22. 

. Ex. L (McClellan Dec. Tr.) 691:23–

692:11

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 10 of 18
5 

Thus, Dr. McClellan’s unreliable “best estimates” methodology concededly is not 

“grounded in the methods and procedures of science and . . . more than unsupported speculation 

or subjective belief,” as Daubert and Rule 702 require. Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d 452, 

459 (5th Cir. 2012); see NetFuel, 2020 WL 1274985, at *10 (excluding opinions where expert 

“failed to explain the methodology underlying his percentage calculations and again relied on 

vague assertions about the Accused Feature’s value”); GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Commc’ns 

Ltd., 2016 WL 2643003, at *6 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2016) (excluding expert opinion relying on 

“‘vague qualitative notions of the relative importance’ of the patented technology to assert that 

10% of the Accused Product’s profits should be apportioned to the patented technology”). 

B. Dr. McClellan’s “Best Estimates” Are Arbitrary and Unsound 

Even if solely relying on one’s experience and knowledge to reach a “best estimate” of the 

value of the patent to the accused product were a scientifically and academically rigorous 

methodology—it is not—Dr. McClellan’s “best estimates” are still unreliable because he has not 

“reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(d). 

 Ex. B (’360 Inf. 

Rpt.) ¶ 259; Ex. C (’133 Inf. Rpt.) ¶¶ 189–93; Ex. D (’800 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 643. 

 This is equivalent to saying Austin is “40%” of Texas.2

 

 

2

 Ex. L (McClellan Dec. Tr.) 689:3–25. 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 11 of 18
6 

. E.g., Ex. B (’360 Inf. 

Rpt.) ¶ 260. 

 Id. ¶ 261. 

. Id. ¶ 262. 

Further, 

. See GPNE Corp., 2014 WL 

1494247, at *5 (excluding opinion of expert who “cloak[ed] his lack of a methodology” in “highly 

generic statements about [the accused] technology”). 

Ex. B (’360 

Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 266.3

 

. 

Id. 

 Ex. D (’800 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 647, 

.”4 Ex. M 

 

3

. 

4

. See, e.g., Ex. O (’360 Inf. Rpt. Exhibit 2); Ex. A (McClellan Nov. Tr.) 244:23–245:4. 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 12 of 18
7 

(Turner Tr.) 209:22–210:12. 

 Ex. B (’360 Inf. 

Rpt.) ¶¶ 268–71.5

 

 Ex. C (’133 Inf. Rpt.) 

¶ 197. 

. Id. 

, id. ¶ 203—

. 

In sum, Dr. McClellan’s flawed application of an unsound methodology cannot satisfy the 

standards of Rule 702 and Daubert, and therefore should be excluded. 

C. Dr. McClellan Failed to Apportion Out (1) the Value of the ’800 Patent to the 

Accused Feature in Prior Art Versions of vSphere, and (2) the Value of the 

Invalid Claims of the ’800 and ’133 Patents 

“When the accused technology does not make up the whole of the accused product, 

apportionment is required.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 

2018). “[I]n cases where the accused product is made up of multiple components, not all of which 

 

5

. Compare

Ex. B (’360 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 258 ( ), with

Ex. D (’800 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 643 ( ). 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 13 of 18
8 

include infringing technology, a technical expert must perform some sort of apportionment, 

isolating the features of the accused product that correspond to the patent in suit.” WhereverTv, 

Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 2022 WL 2115487, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2022); see

Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., 2017 WL 1322555, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2017) 

(excluding expert apportionment opinion that “[said] nothing about the value of claim 1 over 

methods described in the prior art”); see also Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2020 WL 

5106845, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) (given that certain features “existed in the prior art,” 

expert “was required to apportion” to only unconventional features). 

Prior Art of the ’800 Patent. 

 Ex. D (’800 Inf. Rpt.) ¶ 77. Yet,

. Ex. E (Jeffay Reb. Rpt.) ¶ 239. 

 See ’800 Motion. 

. Ex. A (McClellan Nov. Tr.) 231:7–12 ( 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 14 of 18
9 

 His apportionment percentages are thus critically flawed and grossly overstate the 

contribution of the ’800 patent to vSphere. 

This flaw was no oversight. 

 Ex. A (McClellan Nov. Tr.) 228:16–229:22, 231:16–232:20 

. Ex. F (Weinstein Tr.) 55:6–16. 

. Id. at 18:1–4 ( 

 In fact, he blindly adopts Dr. McClellan’s 

apportionment percentages without any additional analysis. See Weinstein Motion to Exclude.6

 

Invalid Claims of the ’800 and ’133 Patents. The single remaining asserted claim of 

the ’800 patent—claim 16—depends from independent claim 13. Ex. G (’800 Patent).7 In 

 

6

 Mr. Weinstein has had his own apportionment analyses stricken on several occasions, and instead 

relied blindly on another expert’s apportionment analysis here. See, e.g., Syneron Med. Ltd. v. 

Invasix, Inc., 2018 WL 4696969 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018) (“Even if we presume that Mr. 

Weinstein’s method . . . could provide some measure of apportionment, [his] superficial and 

conclusory analysis in this regard would still be far from adequate.”). 

7

 WSOU is no longer asserting claim 22 of the ’800 patent. Ex. J (H. Stern Email). 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 15 of 18
10 

September 2022, the PTAB issued an IPR Final Written Decision that claim 13 is invalid, which 

WSOU did not appeal. Ex. H (PTAB FWD). 

. Ex. A (McClellan Nov. Tr.) 257:14–258:9. . See Ex. 

F (Weinstein Tr.) 29:11–18 (

 Thus, 

Dr. McClellan’s apportionment percentages do not account for any value that invalid independent 

claim 13—from which accused claim 16 depends—separately contributed to vSphere. 

Dr. McClellan makes the same error for the ’133 patent. Asserted claim 13 is materially 

the same as unasserted claim 1, which the USPTO rejected in an EPR proceeding in April 2022 

and has since cancelled. Ex. K (EPR Rejection); Ex. N (Reexam Certificate). 

” Ex. L (McClellan Dec. Tr.) 472:23–473:9. 

. Id. at 711:7–13. And again, Mr. Weinstein also failed to conduct this necessary 

step to ensure that WSOU’s damages case was tied “to the claimed invention’s footprint in the 

market place.” ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see Ex. F 

(Weinstein Tr.) 39:6–12; see also Weinstein Motion to Exclude at p. 5. 

Dr. McClellan’s failure to account in his analysis for (1) the prior art to the ’800 patent, 

and (2) the invalidated claims for the ’133 and ’800 patents renders his analysis—and his 

conclusions on apportionment percentages—inaccurate and unreliable. Thus, his opinions on 

apportionment for the ’133 and ’800 patents must be excluded. 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 16 of 18
11 

Dated: December 19, 2022 By: /s/ Brian A. Rosenthal

Barry K. Shelton 

Texas State Bar No. 24055029 

bshelton@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: 214.453.6407 

Facsimile: 214.453.6400 

Benjamin Hershkowitz 

bhershkowitz@gibsondunn.com 

Brian A. Rosenthal 

brosenthal@gibsondunn.com 

Allen Kathir 

akathir@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: 212.351.4000 

Facsimile: 212.351.4035 

Y. Ernest Hsin

ehsin@gibsondunn.com

Jaysen S. Chung

jschung@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921

Telephone: 415.393.8200

Facsimile: 415.393.8306

Ryan K. Iwahashi 

riwahashi@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1881 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211 

Telephone: 650.849.5300 

Facsimile: 650.849.5333 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 17 of 18
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on December 19, 2022, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document 

(which is filed under seal) through email. 

/s/ Brian A. Rosenthal 

Brian A. Rosenthal

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 273 Filed 12/28/22 Page 18 of 18