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

Headwater Research LLC sued Verizon entities for alleged infringement of four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042 (the '042 Patent').
One asserted patent (the '543 Patent') was dismissed by agreement of the parties.
The defendants moved for summary judgment of non-infringement regarding the '042 Patent, which the court recommended granting.
Defendants also moved for summary judgment on issues including no pre-suit willful infringement, indirect infringement, or copying; the court recommended granting in part.
Defendants filed a Daubert motion to strike Dr. Todor Cooklev's expert opinions related to the '042 Patent.
The court denied the Daubert motion as moot, since it had already recommended summary judgment of non-infringement for the '042 Patent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Cooklev’s expert opinions on the '042 Patent	Dr. Cooklev’s reports are relevant and reliable for the '042 Patent issues.	Dr. Cooklev’s opinions do not meet Daubert and Rule 702 standards and should be stricken.	Denied as moot (due to summary judgment on non-infringement).
(Potential applicability if summary judgment is not adopted)	Cooklev’s opinions would remain critical if the recommendation is not adopted.	Defendants could re-raise Daubert challenge if summary judgment is not finalized.	Motion may be reconsidered if summary judgment not accepted.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (extends Daubert to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387 (trial court should not evaluate the correctness of the facts underlying expert opinion at the Daubert stage)
Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239 (emphasizes that Daubert does not replace the adversary system in assessing expert evidence)
United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389 (reiterates the court’s gatekeeping function for expert testimony)