Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Smith Interface Technologies, LLC sued Apple Inc. for patent infringement involving the '754 Patent. The asserted claims are grouped into Edge Menu Claims, Home Screen Context Menu Claims, In-App Context Menu Claims, and Multitasking Interface Claims. The parties filed Daubert motions and motions in limine on August 13, 2026. On September 3, 2026, the court issued its summary-judgment order, finding Smith Interface entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Apple's infringement of the Edge Menu, Home Screen Context Menu, and In-App Context Menu Claims, and Apple entitled to judgment on noninfringement of the Multitasking Interface Claims. The remaining trial issues concern validity of the infringed claims. The court heard oral argument on the Daubert motions and MILs on September 8, 2026.
Smith Interface challenged portions of Apple's damages expert Julie Davis, technical expert Dr. Bederson, and survey expert Sarah Butler. Apple challenged opinions of Smith Interface's damages expert David Kennedy and technical expert Dr. Rosenberg. The parties also filed motions in limine seeking to exclude categories of trial evidence, and Apple filed an unopposed motion for leave to file its opposition one day late because of CM/ECF technical issues.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' Daubert motions and MILs and granted nunc pro tunc Apple's unopposed leave motion. On Smith Interface's motions, the court denied exclusion of Ms. Davis's analysis of the Smith Interface-Samsung Agreement because her patent-counting approach rested on case-specific evidence. But it granted exclusion of her opinions based on the Company Acquisition Agreement, Patent Litigation Settlement Agreements, and Patent Purchase Agreements because she failed to show sufficient comparability to the hypothetical negotiation; related adjustment arguments were moot. The court also granted exclusion of Ms. Davis's technical characterization of Apple patents asserted against Samsung in prior litigation because it depended on an undisclosed discussion with Dr. Bederson. The court denied exclusion of Dr. Bederson's written-description opinions because Smith Interface did not challenge his methodology. As to Ms. Butler, the court declined to strike paragraphs 99-104, but struck paragraphs 94-96 and paragraph 97.
On Apple's motions, the court denied exclusion of Mr. Kennedy's Market Approach opinion, which relied on the comparable Samsung license and Dr. Smith's willing-licensor testimony, and denied exclusion of his Cost Approach opinion except for 'possible additional apportionments' lacking specific economic or technical contributions. The court granted Apple's MIL excluding Mr. Kennedy's Income Approach under Rule 403 because he did not use it to calculate damages and it would confuse the jury, while reserving judgment on Dr. Groehn's conjoint survey. The court reserved judgment on several other MILs, denied others as moot, and granted the agreed-upon MILs.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable-royalty opinions must be tied to comparable agreements with a factual link to the hypothetical negotiation; unsupported patent counting or unexplained settlement and purchase agreements may be excluded.
- Patent-counting testimony can survive Daubert when supported by case-specific evidence, but disagreements about equal patent value generally go to weight, not admissibility.
- Technical experts may rely on experience, training, and education rather than empirical studies, and a party that does not challenge an expert's methodology may lose the exclusion motion.
- Survey experts may critique the external validity of an opposing survey within their expertise, but willingness-to-pay and broader consumer-behavior economics opinions may be struck.
- Evidence not used to calculate damages can be excluded under Rule 403 when its low probative value is substantially outweighed by confusion of the damages issues.
Why It Matters
The order shows the court's gatekeeping role under Daubert and Rules 702, 402, and 403: it excluded valuation opinions lacking sufficient comparability or reliable data while admitting opinions grounded in comparable licenses, case-specific facts, or expert experience. It reinforces that damages proof must connect the claimed invention's marketplace footprint to the royalty analysis.
The MIL rulings also show a practical trial-management approach: the court resolved only the issues ripe for decision, excluded the Income Approach as confusing, and reserved judgment on evidentiary questions better addressed if raised at trial. The nunc pro tunc grant of Apple's late-filed opposition reflects a routine but verified procedural disposition.