Patent Lawyer Blog
In Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (No. 2:23-CV-00439-JRG-RSP, E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied Samsung’s motion to exclude the apportionment opinions of plaintiff’s expert, Mr. W. Leo Hoarty. The ruling, by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, underscores the court’s gatekeeping role under Daubert while affirming that methodological critiques—such as alleged inclusion of prior art value or equal-weight assumptions—typically go to the weight of evidence, not admissibility. This decision in a multi-patent infringement suit over automatic content recognition (ACR) technology highlights the latitude afforded technical experts in royalty calculations, particularly when grounded in defendant-specific data.
Background
AMRH accuses Samsung of infringing four patents (Nos. 9,942,434; 10,244,180; 10,484,503; and 11,238,363) covering ACR systems for fingerprinting and matching media content to enable targeted ads and analytics in smart TVs. Hoarty, a technical expert, opined on apportionment, starting from Samsung’s “Matching and Analytics Servers” costs, counting infringing sub-features (e.g., fingerprint databases), and applying a weighted apportionment rate tied to Samsung’s internal allocations and his expertise.
Samsung sought exclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert, arguing Hoarty’s analysis failed to isolate the patents’ incremental value over prior art, used an unreliable feature-counting method, applied a one-size-fits-all rate across patents, and ignored total ACR costs. After briefing, the court denied the motion.
Key Issues in the Decision
The court reiterated its limited Daubert role: ensuring reliability and relevance without usurping the jury’s fact-finding via cross-examination (Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). It addressed Samsung’s arguments sequentially.
1.Prior Art in Incremental Value
Samsung claimed Hoarty violated Omega Patents LLC v. CalAmp Corp., 13 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and CSIRO v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015), by deeming the patents a “key enabling step” without claim-specific justification and capturing prior art value (e.g., in fingerprinting sub-features) via “incremental contributions.” This, Samsung argued, ignored the need to tie damages to the invention’s market value (VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Rejecting this argument, the court found Hoarty’s feature-based apportionment—drilling down to Samsung-advertised levels—reliable under Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC, 879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018). It cited recent E.D. Tex. cases like Correct Transmission, LLC v. Nokia of Am. Corp., 2024 WL 1289784 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2024), and Smart Path Connections, LLC v. Nokia of Am. Corp., 2024 WL 1096093 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2024), approving similar “counting” tied to defendant documents. Hoarty’s weighting via Samsung’s cost data and rebuttal of non-infringing alternatives sufficed; prior art critiques (e.g., inventors’ admissions) went to weight not admissibility (SB IP Holdings LLC v. Vivint, Inc., 2023 WL 6601415 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2023)).
2. Methodological Reliability
Samsung assailed Hoarty’s three-step process—server-cost base, sub-feature counting without equal-value disclaimers, and lack of “authoritative” support—as arbitrary (Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp., 2014 WL 1389304 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2014); Eidos Display, LLC v. Chi Mei Innolux Corp., 2017 WL 1322550 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2017)). The court countered that Daubert tests fit, not “general acceptance” (Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). The server base mirrored Samsung’s records; schematics’ granularity was adequate with infringement mapping from Dr. Malek; and assumptions (e.g., patents’ full sub-feature value) were rebuttable via cross-examination. The court held: “The Court finds his methodology to be sufficiently reliable for the jury to make further determinations as to the weight and credibility of his testimony.”
3.Uniform Apportionment Rate
Hoarty’s rate applying across patents allegedly flouted Omega and Cisco by ignoring value differences. The court saw overlap with prior rejections, deeming it permissible given a “common core” of benefits and Samsung’s own collective treatment of patents.
Accordingly, the court denied the motion to exclude.
Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:23-CV-00439-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2025)
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. For more information about this case, contact Stan Gibson at (310) 201-3548 or at SGibson@jmbm.com.