Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:792
`
`
`
`Ekwan E. Rhow - State Bar No. 174604
` erhow@birdmarella.com
`Grace W. Kang - State Bar No. 271260
` gkang@birdmarella.com
`A. Howard Matz - State Bar No. 55892
` hmatz@birdmarella.com
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER,
`WOLPERT, NESSIM,
`DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW, P.C.
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
`
`Nicholas Groombridge (pro hac vice)
` ngroombridge@paulweiss.com
`Jenny C. Wu (pro hac vice)
` jcwu@paulweiss.com
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
`WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10019-6064
`Telephone: (212) 373-3000
`Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
`
`
`
`David J. Ball, Jr. (pro hac vice)
` dball@paulweiss.com
`J. Steven Baughman (pro hac vice)
` sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
`WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1047
`Telephone: (202) 223-7300
`Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
` CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`REGARDING THE IMPACT OF
`THE COURT’S DETERMINATION
`OF PATENT-INELIGBILITY IN
`THE FACEBOOK CASE ON
`TWITTER’S PENDING MOTION
`TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED, a Canadian
`corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`TWITTER, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:793
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................. 1 
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 1 
`I.  Collateral Estoppel Precludes Further Litigation of the ’351 and ’929 Patents ... 1 
`II.  Dependent Claim 10 of the ’929 Patent Changes Nothing ................................... 3 
`III.  BlackBerry Should Not Be Permitted to Amend its Complaint Again ................ 5 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 5 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`i
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:794
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`Altair Instruments, Inc. v. Kelley West Enters., LLC,
`No. 15-cv-8115-R, 2016 WL 9137632 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) ........................ 3
`Arduini v. Hart,
`774 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 5
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical Inc.,
`713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 1
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) ............................................................................................... 3
`Dana Corp. v. NOK, Inc.,
`882 F.2d 505 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 5
`DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 808 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ..................................................................... 3
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 4
`Luben Indus., Inc. v. United States,
`707 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................ 2
`Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co.,
`26 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 1
`Montana v. United States,
`440 U.S. 147 (1979) ............................................................................................... 1
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`884 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 5
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 4, 5
`Oyeniran v. Holder,
`672 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`ii
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:795
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED)
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`Paulo v. Holder,
`669 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................. 1
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 4
`UCP Int’l Co. v. Balsam Brands Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-07255-WHO, 2017 WL 5068568
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017) .................................................................................... 2, 3
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C.,
`890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`iii
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:796
`
`
`
`Summary judgment of patent-ineligibility on the independent claims of the
`’351 and ’929 Patents in Facebook will collaterally bar BlackBerry from pursuing
`any other outcome here. Accordingly, if Facebook and Snap’s motion is granted, the
`causes of action as to the ’351 and ’929 Patents should be dismissed with prejudice.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Collateral estoppel serves to “preclude parties from contesting matters that they
`have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S.
`147, 153–54 (1979). With respect to patent-ineligibility, “once the claims of a patent
`are held invalid in a suit involving one alleged infringer, an unrelated party who is
`sued for infringement of those claims may reap the benefit of the invalidity decision
`under principles of collateral estoppel.” Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 26 F.3d
`1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In patent cases, collateral estoppel is generally governed by regional circuit
`law. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical Inc., 713 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`Under Ninth Circuit law, collateral estoppel applies when: “(1) the issue necessarily
`decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be
`relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3)
`the party against whom [estoppel] is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at
`the first proceeding.” Paulo v. Holder, 669 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 2011). Courts
`also consider whether the estopped party had a “full and fair opportunity to litigate
`the issue.” Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012).
`ARGUMENT
`I. Collateral Estoppel Precludes Further Litigation of the ’351 and ’929 Patents
`A judgment of patent-ineligibility as to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,296,351 (the “’351
`Patent”) and 8,676,929 (the “’929 Patent”) will estop BlackBerry from asserting those
`patents here. It will have litigated, and lost, the issue.
`First, the identity requirement is easily satisfied. The same two patents are in
`dispute: the ’351 and ’929 Patents. The same legal question is presented and central
`
`1
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:797
`
`
`to the summary judgment motion in Facebook: eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`Second, grant of summary judgment of patent-ineligibility of the ’351 and ’929
`Patents in Facebook will meet the final judgment prong. For purposes of collateral
`estoppel, a “final judgment” can be any prior adjudication of an issue that is
`determined to be “sufficiently firm” to be accorded conclusive effect. Luben Indus.,
`Inc. v. United States, 707 F.2d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 1983). In determining the
`firmness of a prior decision, courts consider factors such as (1) whether the decision
`was “avowedly tentative,” (2) whether the parties were fully heard, (3) whether the
`decision was supported with a reasoned opinion, and (4) whether that decision is
`subject to appeal or was in fact reviewed on appeal. Id. The first three factors will
`undoubtedly support the firmness of the grant of summary judgment in Facebook.
`The fourth factor is not relevant. As Luben explains, that factor arises from the
`concern that the court rendering the prior decision could still revisit that decision and
`thus undercut the purpose of applying collateral estoppel to conserve judicial
`resources and promote judicial consistency. See id. But that is not a concern here
`because this Court is also rendering the Facebook decision. If Facebook and Snap’s
`summary judgment motion is granted with respect to the ’351 and ’929 Patents, the
`Court’s summary judgment ruling will be “sufficiently firm.” In any event, the
`appealability of a judgment is but one factor and is outweighed by other factors
`supporting collateral estoppel here.
`UCP International Co. v. Balsam Brands Inc., which presents similar facts, is
`instructive. No. 16-cv-07255-WHO, 2017 WL 5068568, at *3-*4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3,
`2017). In that case, Judge Orrick of the Northern District of California barred the
`patentee from relitigating claim construction based on his own prior claim
`construction order on the same patent in another case against a different accused
`infringer. Id. at *4. Citing Luben, Judge Orrick concluded that his prior claim
`construction was preclusive despite its interlocutory nature. Nothing in the prior
`claim construction denoted that it was “avowedly tentative”; a Markman hearing had
`
`2
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:798
`
`
`been conducted, affording the patentee the opportunity to “fully litigate the issues”;
`and his earlier decision was “supported by a reasoned opinion in a 22-page order,”
`presumably indicating that he did not see a need to revisit that decision. Id. at *3-*4.
`Given that determination, Judge Orrick found “[t]hat the [prior claim construction]
`cannot now be appealed is not sufficient to counterbalance the factors that weigh in
`favor of collateral estoppel” and did not revisit his prior constructions. Id; see Altair
`Instruments, Inc. v. Kelley West Enters., LLC, No. 15-cv-8115-R, 2016 WL 9137632,
`at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) (“Merely settling a case prior to the conclusion of any
`potential appeal need not remove the preclusive effect of a decision.”).
`Third, BlackBerry, as the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted
`here, is unquestionably also the same party in Facebook.
`Finally, it is beyond doubt that BlackBerry has had full and fair opportunity to
`litigate the eligibility of the ’351 and ’929 Patents in Facebook. At the motion to
`dismiss stage, BlackBerry opposed dismissal under § 101. At the Markman stage, the
`Court resolved relevant claim construction disputes. At summary judgment,
`BlackBerry had yet another opportunity to litigate any and all § 101 issues. In short,
`BlackBerry was repeatedly heard on this precise issue.
`The instant case is a straightforward application of collateral estoppel. As the
`Supreme Court has long made clear, intervening final decisions of patent invalidity
`can render moot any other pending decisions on the same patent-at-issue. Blonder-
`Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 350 (1971); see,
`e.g., DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 3d 808
`(E.D. Tex. 2014) (Federal Circuit Judge Bryson, sitting by designation, granting
`summary judgment of invalidity under § 101 based on collateral estoppel from § 101
`determination in another case).
`II. Dependent Claim 10 of the ’929 Patent Changes Nothing
`Although Blackberry asserts dependent Claim 10 of the ’929 Patent against
`Twitter (and not against Facebook or Snap), BlackBerry should be similarly estopped
`
`3
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:799
`
`
`from further proceeding on that basis.
`First, collateral estoppel applies to issues, not claims, that were litigated. Ohio
`Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasis in
`original) (holding that under Federal Circuit precedent, “it is the identity of the issues
`that were litigated,” not the specific patent claims, “that determines whether collateral
`estoppel should apply.”). “If the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims
`and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity,
`collateral estoppel applies.” Id. (finding collateral estoppel applied to the assertion of
`unadjudicated patent claims where the patentee offered no explanation showing any
`material difference with adjudicated patent claims).
`As Twitter’s motion explained, Claim 9 is exemplary of the ineligibility of all
`asserted claims of the ’929 Patent. Dkt. No. 39-1 at 19-20. There is no material
`difference among Claims 1 and 9 (at issue in Facebook and here) and Claim 10 (at
`issue here). Claim 10, which depends from Claim 9, simply adds the limitation of
`transmitting an advertisement instead of content information with a meta tag if an
`advertisement is relevant to a triggering event. But substituting one type of
`information for another type of information to be transmitted does not confer
`eligibility. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (“limit[ing information] to particular content . . . does not change its character
`as information”); SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir.
`2018).
`Notably, in opposition to Twitter’s motion, BlackBerry argued at length that
`certain dependent claims supposedly conferred eligibility, but said nothing about
`Claim 10 of the ’929 Patent. See Dkt. Nos. 40, 40-1. It is too late for BlackBerry to
`manufacture an issue on this point now.
`Second, Claim 10 of the ’929 Patent is independently invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, ¶ 4. The Court has already invalidated Claim 2 as “contrary to the requirements
`of § 112, ¶ 4,” which BlackBerry fully and fairly litigated during the Facebook claim
`
`4
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:800
`
`
`construction proceedings. Facebook, Dkt. No. 157 at 17-19. Although this Court
`only specifically addressed Claim 2 in Facebook, Claim 10 does not present any
`material difference in patentability as it is merely directed to a server configured to
`run the method of Claim 2. Claims 2 and 10 “use slightly different language to
`describe substantially the same invention,” but “the mere use of different words in
`these portions of the claims does not create a new issue of invalidity.” Ohio Willow
`Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342-43; see also Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884
`F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As above, all the elements of collateral estoppel
`are satisfied here, and BlackBerry cannot assert this claim against Twitter once
`judgment on the indefiniteness of Claim 2 is entered. See Arduini v. Hart, 774 F.3d
`622, 627, 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal based on issue preclusion where
`dispositive issue had been previously resolved against plaintiff); Ohio Willow Wood,
`735 F.3d at 1343.
`III. BlackBerry Should Not Be Permitted to Amend its Complaint Again
`Any request for leave to amend to assert different claims of these patents
`should be denied. BlackBerry has already amended its complaint once in this case in
`the face of a § 101 motion to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 17, 36. In that amendment,
`BlackBerry did not assert any other claims of the ’351 or ’929 Patents. Compare
`Dkt. Nos. 1, 36. If BlackBerry wished to provide factual allegations as to additional
`dependent claims, the time to do so was in its First Amended Complaint.
`CONCLUSION
`Twitter respectfully submits that the Court should grant Twitter’s motion as
`to the ’351 and ’929 Patents with prejudice. Collateral estoppel applies now. See
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., 890 F.3d 1282, 1294-95 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(quoting Dana Corp. v. NOK, Inc., 882 F.2d 505, 508 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) (“A remand
`for briefing is not a requirement to applying estoppel when there is no indication
`from the Patent Owner that ‘it did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
`validity’ of its patent in the parallel case.”).
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`
`5
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 50 Filed 09/10/19 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:801
`
`
`DATED: September 10, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`
`
`
`
`By:
`/s/ Nicholas Groombridge
`Nicholas Groombridge
`
`
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10019-6064
`Telephone: (212) 373-3000
`Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`6
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING IMPACT OF PATENT-INELIGIBILITY
`DETERMINATION IN FACEBOOK
`
`