Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., 2:23-cv-00352

Headwater Research LLC sued Verizon and related entities for alleged infringement of four patents; one patent was later dismissed by stipulation.
Headwater moved to strike specific portions of Defendants’ expert Dr. Jeffay’s testimony relating to obviousness and non-infringing alternatives (NIAs).
The motion addressed whether Dr. Jeffay's opinions on certain NIAs and his analysis of obviousness met the standards for admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and the governing Daubert/Kumho Tire standard.
Plaintiff claimed Dr. Jeffay’s NIA opinions were not properly disclosed in discovery and, irrespective of disclosure, were irrelevant to damages because Defendants’ damages expert did not analyze them.
Defendants argued the NIA opinions were adequately disclosed and incorporated into their damages analysis, and that Dr. Jeffay did provide the necessary motivation-to-modify analysis for obviousness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. Jeffay provided sufficient “motivation to modify” in his obviousness analysis	Jeffay failed to provide evidence of motivation—a key requirement for obviousness	Jeffay explained a POSITA would consider the two options; this is enough under KSR	DENIED; sufficient rationale present for factfinder consideration
Whether Dr. Jeffay’s OS-Switching and iOS 7-10 NIA opinions were timely disclosed	These specific NIAs were not identified in interrogatory responses	Disclosures were sufficient; NIAs were captured by general statements	GRANTED; NIAs first disclosed in expert reports, not in discovery
Whether the iOS 7-10 NIA was properly disclosed	Not disclosed until rebuttal report, excuse for late disclosure unsupported	Defendants could not have anticipated iOS 7-10 would be unaccused until Plaintiff’s expert report	GRANTED; disclosure untimely, so testimony stricken
Whether Dr. Jeffay’s NIA opinions are relevant without damages expert analysis	NIAs irrelevant as Defendants’ damages expert didn’t analyze their impact	Damages expert incorporated the NIAs, supporting near-zero damages	DENIED; damages expert’s analysis was sufficient; relevance concerns go to weight, not admissibility

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (trial courts have broad discretion as evidentiary gatekeepers)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (sets standard for expert witness admissibility)
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (guides when motivation-to-combine exists for obviousness)