1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

LKQ CORPORATION, and KEYSTONE 

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, GM 

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS, 

LLC, and GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02753

The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANTS’ DAUBERT MOTION TO PRECLUDE 

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN BOOTH AND JASON HILL

Defendants General Motors Company, GM Global Technology Operations, LLC, and 

General Motors LLC (collectively “GM”), respectfully move this Court for an Order precluding

the testimony of Plaintiffs LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.’s experts

Brian Booth and Jason Hill. GM requests the Court preclude Mr. Booth from testifying entirely, 

and that it preclude Jason Hill from testifying as to his materiality opinions found in paragraphs 

1, 2, 30, 343, 345, 347, 349, 351-53, 356, and 358 of his Initial Expert Report. As described in 

greater detail in the accompanying brief, these opinions do not meet the admissibility standards 

set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 

509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Mr. Booth’s Initial Expert Report is unreliable and legally irrelevant. Mr. Booth’s 

opinions consider only what a designer of ordinary skill could have physically done, not what a 

designer of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do. And in providing these opinions, 

Mr. Booth relies on software from 2022 without any evidence that the functionality utilized 

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 263 Filed: 12/16/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:5053
2

would have been available to a designer of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority dates of the 

patents-in-suit. The Court should hold Mr. Booth’s opinions wholly inadmissible.

Mr. Hill offers speculative opinions regarding whether Patent Office examiners would 

have found certain references material to patentability. Yet Mr. Hill has never been a patent 

examiner, he has no training or experience in Patent Office procedures, and he is not qualified to 

testify about what an examiner would have done or thought. Furthermore, Mr. Hill bases his 

opinions on unreliable speculation about what the examiners knew and what they might have 

done under different circumstances. Finally, Mr. Hill’s opinions constitute impermissible legal 

conclusions. Thus, Mr. Hill’s materiality opinions are inadmissible.

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 263 Filed: 12/16/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:5054
3

Dated: December 16, 2022 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Conrad A. Gosen

John C. Adkisson (pro hac vice)

adkisson@fr.com

Joseph A. Herriges (pro hac vice)

herriges@fr.com

Conrad A. Gosen (pro hac vice)

gosen@fr.com

Brianna L. Chamberlin (pro hac vice)

chamberlin@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

60 South 6th Street

Suite 3200

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Telephone: (612) 335-5070

Facsimile: (612) 288-9696

Steven McMahon Zeller (IL 6238416)

szeller@dykema.com

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

10 South Wacker Drive

Suite 2300

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (312) 627-2272

Attorneys for Defendants

General Motors Company, GM Global 

Technology Operations, LLC, and General 

Motors LLC

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 263 Filed: 12/16/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:5055
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via CM/ECF on 

December 16, 2022 upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Conrad A. Gosen

Conrad A. Gosen (pro hac vice)

gosen@fr.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 263 Filed: 12/16/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:5056