United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MLC'S THIRD DAUBERT MOTION TO
EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH MCALEXANDER RE: DKT. NO.
ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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). 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
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.
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
373-383 of 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.
Court concludes that if Dr. Lee is permitted to testify about
the technical value of the ‘571 patent,  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 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
IS SO ORDERED.
 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).
 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
 Dr. Lee's testimony is the subject
of a pending Daubert ...