Contract analysis

I. Executive Summary This memorandum provides a comprehensive review and critical analysis of the opening expert report of Dr. Calvin Ng, Adjunct Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Veltrano Polytechnic Institute, Newark, Delaware, submitted on behalf of plaintiff Apex Surgical Innovations, Inc. ("Apex"). Dr. Ng's report was served on February 10, 2025, in accordance with the Court's expert discovery schedule, and

II. Background and Procedural Posture A. The Asserted Patents and Claims Apex asserts three related utility patents in this action, all naming Dr. Raymond Szabo (Vice President of Engineering at Apex Surgical Innovations, Inc.) as the sole named inventor. All three patents are assigned to Apex Surgical Innovations, Inc. and form part of a broader patent family comprising fourteen total issued United States patents an

III. Summary of Dr. Ng's Infringement Opinions A. Overview of Report Structure Dr. Ng's opening infringement expert report spans approximately 187 pages, exclusive of exhibits. The report is accompanied by 24 exhibits, including tear-down photographs, annotated patent claim charts, copies of referenced Solstice and Apex production documents, and Dr. Ng's curriculum vitae and list of prior expert engagements. The repo

IV. Detailed Analysis and Identified Weaknesses A. Overarching Methodological Concerns Before addressing the patent-by-patent weaknesses in Dr. Ng's report, we identify three overarching methodological concerns that affect the reliability and persuasiveness of his opinions across all three asserted patents.

1. Selective Application of Court's Claim Constructions. The most pervasive and fundamental flaw in Dr. Ng's report is his inconsistent application of the Court's Claim Construction Order. While the report purports to apply the Court's constructions and cites the December 6, 2024 Order in its introductory methodology section, our review has identified at least four specific instances in which Dr. Ng applies Apex's pr

2. Inadequate Tear-Down Methodology. Dr. Ng reports that he performed physical tear-downs of production samples of each of the three accused PrecisionEdge™ product lines. The tear-down analysis is central to his infringement opinions, as it provides the factual basis for his element-by-element mapping of the accused product structures to the asserted claim limitations. However, his description of the tear-down method

3. Failure to Address Design Changes. Solstice's production documents (SBD-023100 through SBD-023415) establish that the PE-5000 Series blade deployment mechanism underwent a significant design revision in Q3 2022. The revision, documented in Solstice Engineering Change Order No. ECO-2022-0147 (SBD-023108), modified the cam-actuated blade retraction system to a direct-linkage retraction system, altered the geometry o