8:21 – 10:3

Retention as Expert Witness

MW has been retained as an expert witness to calculate the damages to XYZ Corporation.                        This is the seventh time he has been deposed as an expert witness

10:4 – 10:18

Exhibit 2569 Marked for ID (Notice of Deposition)

Exhibit 2569 is the Notice of MW’s deposition. 

10:19 – 11:16

Exhibit 2570 is MW’s CV, current as of the date of his report, but incomplete as of today.               He will provide a current CV.

11:17 – 12:3

Exhibit 2571 is an errata sheet to MW’s expert report.   

12:4 – 17:10

The errata sheet to MW’s expert report (Exhibit 2571) is complete with respect to the papers he has written and the speeches made.  He wrote this expert report. 

17:11 – 21:18

Daubert motions have been filed 30 to 40 times in the cases listed in the errata sheet to MW’s expert report (Exhibit 2571).  None have been fully but some have been granted in part -- in a copyright case dealing with medical illustrations and perhaps in one other case that MW cannot recall.  He has never been found unqualified as a damage expert.  In X v. Y, a court issued an opinion criticized his methodology.  Other than in connection with a Daubert motion, no court has ever done so.  He has never been disciplined by a professional organization or association. 

21:19 – 22:14

MW spent about 15 hours preparing for this deposition; he reread his expert report, looked at the source documents, prepared the errata sheet (Exhibit 2571), and met with counsel.    

22:15 – 24:7

Exhibit 2572 is a copy of MW’s expert report, without exhibits.  Tab 1 of Volume 1 is the written portion of the report. 

24:8 – 24:12

In his expert report (Exhibit 2572), MW expresses opinions on an applicable royalty rate, royalty base, and a damage figure, among other things.

24:13 – 26:19

The XYZ patent (the Patent) deals with the wireless communications multipath problem in an inside environment, principally using a fast Fourier transform of the Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) technique.  It uses forward error correction and interleaving to help solve the problem, enabling a faster data rate while maintaining reliability.  MW is not a technical expert in this case.  His understanding of the Patent comes from reading it, conversations with counsel, and conversations with Dr. M.  The Patent does not claim to invent mobile computing such as laptop computers or wireless computing, and it does not cover all wireless communication devices that work indoors.  MW does not know if it is limited to local area networks, but he understands that it is so limited for the products in this case.

26:20 – 29:5

The value of the Patent’s technology which MW has attempted to quantify is that it is significantly faster and ensures a reliable system.  The first generation of products using the Patent was almost five times faster than the next best alternative in terms of speed and rate of data transfer.  The two benefits of the Patent that MW has attempted to value are the higher data transfer rate and reliability. 

29:6 – 30:7

With the addition of the errata sheet (Exhibit 2571), MW’s expert report (Exhibit 2572) completely and accurately reflects his opinions in this case.  MW relied upon opinions of certain experts retained by the plaintiffs in his report.  He has not seen any opinions provided by the defendants.  On Page 1 of his report, he states the royalty rate should be on a per-unit basis.

30:8 – 30:22

Exhibit 2573 is a copy of the cover of Litigation Handbook (the Handbook).  MW co-edited the Handbook and co-authored a number of the chapters, including Chapter 22.

30:23 – 31:11

Exhibit 2574 is Page 15 of Chapter 22 of the Handbook, regarding reasonable royalty.