Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 33
`
` REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Bradley W. Caldwell (pro hac vice)
`Christopher D. Banys (SBN 230038)
`Jennifer L. Gilbert (SBN 255820)
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`Jason D. Cassady (pro hac vice)
`BANYS, P.C.
`1030 Duane Avenue
`jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`John Austin Curry (pro hac vice)
`Santa Clara, CA 95054
`Tel: (650) 308-8505
`acurry@caldwellcc.com
`Warren J. McCarty, III (pro hac vice)
`Fax: (650) 353-2202
`cdb@banyspc.com
`wmccarty@caldwellcc.com
`jlg@banyspc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
`2101 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 1000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Windy City Innovations, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS,
`LLC’S RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`[Dkt. 160]
`
`Date: April 2, 2019
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Ctrm: Courtroom 1, Fourth Floor
`
`The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 33
`
`
` 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 
`I. 
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...........................................................1 
`II. 
`III.  WINDY CITY OWNS U.S. PATENT NO. 8,458,245. ...............................................................1 
`The Claimed Inventions Are Outside the Scope of the Work for Hire Agreement. .........2
`A. 
`B.
`The Work for Hire Agreement Is Not a Valid, Enforceable Contract ..............................4 
`1. 
`Dr. Marks’s Testimony Does Not Support Facebook’s Theory. ..........................5 
`2. 
`AIS’s Actual Course of Conduct Does Not Indicate Assent. ...............................5 
`3. 
`The Work for Hire Agreement Is Not a Present Assignment. ..............................6 
`AIS Had No Rights in the ’491 Patent Family to Assign in June 1995. ...........................7 
`C. 
`THE ʼ245 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBLE. ..................................7 
`A. 
`The ʼ245 Patent’s Claims Are Not Abstract. ....................................................................9 
`B. 
`Facebook Has Failed to Establish the Lack of an Inventive Concept. ............................12 
`FACEBOOK MESSENGER INFRINGES U.S. PATENT NO. 8,458,245. ..............................14 
`A. 
`Messenger Sends Communications in Real Time. .........................................................14 
`B. 
`Messenger Clients Send and Receive Private Messages. ...............................................15 
`C. 
`Facebook Is Liable for Direct Infringement. ..................................................................17 
`D. 
`Facebook Is Liable for Inducing Infringement. ..............................................................22 
`E. 
`Facebook Is Liable for Contributory Infringement. ........................................................24 
`CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................25 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`i
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`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 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.
`
`890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Abraxis v. Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinata LLC
`
`625 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.
`
`324 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D. Del. 2018) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l
`
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... 9, 11, 12, 13
`
`Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus.
`
`939 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991).......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.
`
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................ 16
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016 ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp.
`
`990 F.2d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 1993).......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.
`
`543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008).......................................................................................................... 24
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.
`
`316 F. Supp. 3d 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ....................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
`
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Comms. Int’l, Inc.
`
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................ 17, 18, 19, 20, 22
`
`Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc.
` No. 2017-2510, 2019 WL 612573 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2019) .................................................... 20, 21
`
`Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc.
` No. CV 14-183-RGA, 2017 WL 3730617 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017)................................................ 21
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`ii
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
`
`135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015) ...................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.
`
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................................ 11
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC
`
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018).......................................................................................................... 11
`
`DDB Techs. LLC v. MLB Advanced Media LP
`
`517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................... 2, 6
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
`
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................................................... 9, 11
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp.
`
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................................ 21
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
`
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).............................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`Fantasy Sports Props., Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc.
`
`287 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................................ 19
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.
`
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018).......................................................................................................... 9
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.
`
`2018 WL 4184338 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) ................................................................................ 12
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.
`
`626 F.3d 1197, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2010).............................................................................................. 25
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.
`
`620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................ 22, 24, 25
`
`Getz v. Boeing Co.
` No. CV-07-6396, 2008 WL 2705099 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2008) ......................................................... 5
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
`
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ................................................................................................................... 23, 24
`
`Hodosh v. Block Drug Co.
`
`833 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1987)........................................................................................................ 25
`
`Immersion Corp. v. Fitbit, Inc.
`
`313 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`iii
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`
`In re CTP Innovations, LLC
` No. 14-cv-3894-MJG, 2016 WL 6996738 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2016) .............................................. 7
`
`In re Cygnus Telecomms. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig.
`
`536 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................ 24
`
`In re Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.
`
`2013 WL 5777295 (W.D. Pa. 2013) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC
`
`783 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................................ 23
`
`Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Groupon, Inc.
`
`289 F. Supp. 3d 596 (D. Del. 2017) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.
` No. CV 18-452-WCB, 2019 WL 330515 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2019) .................................................. 23
`
`James v. J2 Cloud Servs., LLC
`
`887 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).......................................................................................................... 2
`
`Landmark Props., Inc. v. Architects Int’l-Chicago
`
`526 N.E.2d 603 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Lundin v. Egyptian Constr. Co., Inc.
`
`331 N.E.2d 208 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Motorola Sols., Inc.
` No. CV 12-33-RGA, 2016 WL 70814 (D. Del. Jan. 6, 2016) ......................................................... 25
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
`
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ....................................................................................................................... 1, 6
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
`
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ........................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc.
`
`793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986)........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Motio, Inc. v. BSP Software LLC
` No. 4:12-cv-647, 2015 WL 8770356 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2015) ...................................................... 3
`
`N. Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp.
`
`908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990).......................................................................................................... 17
`
`Nanosys, Inc. v. QD Vision, 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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`iv
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
` No. 16-CV-01957-YGR, 2016 WL 4943006 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016) ....................................... 22
`
`Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc
`
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................ 14
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.
`
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017).......................................................................................................... 9
`
`Rembrandt Soc. Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.
` No. 13-cv-00158 (E.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2013) ........................................................................... 17, 18, 19
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Comput. Inc.
`
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................ 21
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. J.C. Penney Corp.
`
`899 F. Supp. 2d 574 (E.D. Tex. 2012) ....................................................................................... 18, 20
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC
`
`778 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................................ 18
`
`SuperCell Oy v. Gree, Inc.
` No. 17-cv-05556-YGR, 2018 WL 1609584 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018) ............................................ 10
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.
`
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................................ 15
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC
`
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................................ 15
`
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, INC.
`
`675 F. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC
`
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................................ 12
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011).................................................................................................. 17, 19
`
`Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.
`
`2018 WL 1116530 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018).................................................................................. 13
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`v
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.
`
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.
`
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017).......................................................................................................... 9
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.
`
`581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Windy City v. Microsoft
` Case No. 16-cv-01729-YGR, Dkt. 54 at 8 (June 17, 2016) ............................................................. 23
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ................................................................................................................................. 24
`
`35 U.S.C. 102(b) .................................................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. 271(a) .................................................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`Rules 
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ..................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ..................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ..................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Local Rule 7-3(a) ..................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`vi
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court permitted Facebook twenty-five pages for summary judgment. Twenty-five pages
`
`is more than sufficient for a party to comprehensively establish that one of its defenses is so
`
`impenetrable that the case can be resolved on summary judgment. But Facebook’s motion gives
`
`shallow treatment to a smattering of issues. Facebook simply raises an issue, makes conclusory
`
`assertions, ignores unfavorable evidence, and then moves on to the next issue—for a total of seven
`
`issues. Make no mistake: Facebook was not merely being indecisive when it chose quantity over
`
`quality. Rather, Facebook is hoping that quantity will camouflage the lack of quality in its defenses.
`
`Facebook raised issue after issue because it had little to say about each issue, and Facebook gave
`
`superficial treatment to its defenses because its defenses, themselves, are superficial. Moreover,
`
`Facebook could not engage on any issue in any real depth without revealing that there are factual
`
`issues for the jury to decide.
`
`Plaintiff Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”) submits this response in opposition.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Summary judgment is only proper when no genuine and disputed issues of material fact
`
`remain, and when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is
`
`clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
`
`317, 322–23 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no material factual
`
`dispute. Therefore, the court must regard as true the opposing party’s evidence, if supported by
`
`affidavits or other evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The court must draw all reasonable
`
`inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Matsushita Elec. Indus.
`
`Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
`III. WINDY CITY OWNS U.S. PATENT NO. 8,458,245.
`It is undisputed that Dr. Daniel L. Marks is the sole inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5, 956,491
`
`and related applications that include the application that resulted in the patents asserted in this case,
`
`(the “ʼ491 Patent Family”). (Responsive Separate Statement (“RSS”) Facts 1, 2). On August 15,
`
`1996, Dr. Marks assigned his rights to the ’491 Patent Family to American Information Systems,
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`1
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`Inc. (“AIS”). (RSS, Fact 14). On October 22, 1998, AIS assigned the rights to the ’491 Patent
`
`Family to Peter Trzyna. (RSS, Add’l Fact (“AF”) 1). On June 22, 2004 Mr. Trzyna assigned the
`
`rights to the ’491 Patent Family to the plaintiff, Windy City Innovations, LLC. (RSS, AF 2). These
`
`assignments are not disputed by Facebook. Facebook raises a competing chain-of-title theory,
`
`arguing that on June 6, 1995, AIS allegedly assigned the ’491 Patent Family to UtiliCorp United,
`
`Inc. (“UtiliCorp”), thus preventing Windy City from owning the’491 Patent Family. Dkt. 160
`
`(Facebook’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mot.”)) at 3-4.
`A.
`Facebook’s chain-of-title theory is wrong. The Work for Hire Agreement bears on the
`
`The Claimed Inventions Are Outside the Scope of the Work for Hire Agreement.
`
`ownership of the ’491 Patent Family only if the inventions claimed are assignable under the scope of
`
`the Work for Hire Agreement. See, e.g., DDB Techs. LLC v. MLB Advanced Media LP, 517 F.3d
`
`1284, 1288-89 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Facebook has failed to establish that Dr. Marks’s claimed inventions
`
`fall within the scope of the Work for Hire Agreement. At a minimum, Facebook could have
`
`compared the claims of Windy City’s patents against the assignment clause in the Work for Hire
`
`Agreement to analyze whether the inventions fall within the assignment clause. But Facebook
`offered zero analysis of how the inventions claimed in the ’491 Patent Family compare against the
`
`scope of the Work for Hire Agreement. Nor could it: the inventions claimed in the ’491 Patent
`
`Family fall outside of the
`
`
`
` provision of the Work for Hire Agreement. (Ex. 2 to Mot. at WC-00023842).
`
`“In construing the substance of [an alleged] assignment, a court must carefully consider the
`
`intention of the parties and the language of the grant.” James v. J2 Cloud Servs., LLC, 887 F.3d
`
`1368, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the Work for Hire Agreement’s assignment provision is
`
`expressly limited to
`
`
`
` (Ex. 2 to Mot. at WC-00023842) (emphasis added). AIS’s
`
`obligations (including its obligations to assign) were specifically delineated and limited in Section I
`
`of the Work for Hire Agreement,
`
`
`
`tries to avoid Appendix A entirely by arguing that the Work for Hire Agreement covers “all
`
` (Ex. 2 to Mot. at WC-00023841). 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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`2
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 33
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 33
`
`materials and intellectual property rights related to Dr. Marks’s work on behalf of AIS relating to the
`
`UtiliCorp chat system” and inexplicably covers “any inventions developed through Dr. Marks’ work
`
`on the UtiliCorp chat system.” Mot. at 8. Plainly, Facebook’s naked assertions cannot supplant the
`
`actual language of the Work for Hire Agreement,—
`
`Facebook fiuther tries to avoid the confines of Appendix A by relying on the testimony of
`
`Dr. Marks. But Dr. Marks testified that his inventions went beyond the Work for Hire Agreement.
`
`Men—
`
`— (RSS, AF 4). In any event, Dr. Marks’s testimony cannot change the scope of
`
`the assigmnent clause. as written in the Work for Hire Agreement, nor can it change the scope of his
`
`inventions, as claimed in the patents. Simply put, Facebook’s reliance on Dr. Marks’s testimony is a
`
`poor substitute for the work it should have done—comparing the scope of the claimed inventions to
`
`the scope of the assigmnent clause.
`
`Motto, Inc. v. BSP Software LLC, NO. 4:12-cv—647, 2015 WL 8770356 at *2 (ED. Tex. Dec.
`
`15, 2015), demonstrates how similar assignment clauses should be analyzed. There, the relevant
`
`agreement had a broad assigmnent provision, unlike the assigmnent clause at issue here.1 The court
`
`analyzed the assigmnent clause against the scope of the claims and found, even lmder a broad
`
`assignment clause, that the claims were not within its scope because the inventions were not
`
`necessarily a required part of the work. Motio, 2015 WL 8770356 at *2. The same analysis
`
`demonstrates that Dr. Marks’s inventions are outside the scope of the Agreement. Again, the Work
`
`for Hire Agreement called for— emunerated in Appendix A. Notably, Dr.
`
`Marks testified that the system he invented did not even confonn to the requirement in Appendix A.
`
`First, his chat system did not have all of the features required in Appendix A. such as an-
`
`- feature or a— (Compare Ex. 2 to Mot. at WC-00023844 with Ex. A.
`
`1 Compare Motto, 2015 WL 8770356 at *1 (“Any discoveries. inventions, or improvements made
`pursuant to the Services bein
`rovided under the terms of this A eement .
`. .” with Dkt. 159-8 at WC-
`
`
`
`00023842
`
`(emphasis added).
`PLAlNTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`4:16—C\'—01730—YGR
`
`3
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`Marks Tr. at 203:20-204:17, 205:7-12).2 Second—and more importantly—Dr. Marks’s chat system
`
`had many features that went beyond the scope of the Work for Hire Agreement, including the ability
`
`to
`
` and the ability to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. A, Marks Tr. at 205:24-206:13).
`
`Critically, these additional features—which were not contemplated by the Work for Hire Agreement
`
`and therefore do not fall within the assignment scope—are required elements of the independent
`
`claims of the ’245 patent. And fundamentally, the Work for Hire Agreement contemplated
`
`
`
`, but Dr. Marks’s later-developed claimed inventions recite novel functionality
`
`for both servers and clients.3
`
`Because (1) the assignment provision in the Work for Hire Agreement is specifically limited
`
`to the features in Appendix A, (2) the claimed inventions did not have all of the features required in
`
`Appendix A, and (3) the claimed inventions require elements not contemplated by Appendix A, the
`
`chat system that formed the basis for the inventions claimed in the ’491 Patent Family is outside the
`
`scope of the Work for Hire Agreement’s assignment provision.
`B. The Work for Hire Agreement Is Not a Valid, Enforceable Contract.
`
`Facebook’s motion also fails for another independent reason. Facebook argues that the Work
`
`for Hire Agreement is a valid, enforceable contract—
`
`was
`
`—because it
`
` via its conduct. Mot. at 5.
`
`This is both legally and factually incorrect. Windy City has carried its own burden by establishing,
`
`through publicly recorded assignment histories, chain of title to its ownership. (See RSS, Facts 1, 2,
`
`
`2 All Windy City exhibits referenced herein are attached to the Declaration of Warren J. McCarty, III.
`Tellingly, after Dr. Marks began explaining how his inventions went well beyond the limited scope of the
`Work for Hire Agreement in his deposition, Facebook’s counsel took a break from deposition and then
`asked no further questions on that topic. (Ex. A, Marks Tr. at 206:14-15).
`3 Avoiding these facts, Facebook resorts to arguing that Dr. Marks’s inventions must have been assigned
`to UtiliCorp because UtiliCorp filed for trademarks on “PQ Chat” and “Power Quality Chat.” Mot. at 8.
`Facebook makes no attempt to explain how these abandoned trademark applications are in any way related
`to Dr. Marks’ work, and regardless, UtiliCorp’s alleged “beliefs” have no bearing on the legal effect of
`the actual terms of the Work for Hire Agreement.
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`4
`
`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 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`14; RSS, AF 1, 2). In the face of this showing, Facebook has its own burden of proof to prove its
`
`competing chain-of-title theory. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1327-28
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). Facebook has not carried its burden, and at a minimum, there are fact questions
`
`related to the Work for Hire Agreement that preclude summary judgment.
`1.
`In order to meet its burden of proof of showing a valid, enforceable contract, Facebook must
`
`Dr. Marks’s Testimony Does Not Support Facebook’s Theory.
`
`prove that AIS assented to the terms of the Agreement by its conduct. Landmark Props., Inc. v.
`
`Architects Int’l-Chicago, 526 N.E.2d 603, 606 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988). Facebook cannot establish assent
`
`via conduct. (See RSS, AF 6). The only evidence Facebook has of AIS’s conduct is testimony from
`
`Dr. Marks. Mot. at 5-6. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and
`
`602, Windy City objects to Facebook’s attempt to rely on Dr. Marks’s testimony characterizing his
`
`work at AIS in relation to the Work for Hire Agreement, discussing the “UtiliCorp chat system,” or
`
`otherwise interpreting the Work for Hire Agreement. See, e.g., Getz v. Boeing Co., No. CV-07-6396,
`
`2008 WL 2705099 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2008). Dr. Marks testified that
`
`
`
`. (Ex. A,
`
`Marks. Tr. at 40:6-41:11, 191:8-192:20, 208:4-209:7, 220:23-222:14, 270:19-272:25, 281:14-18,
`
`285:15-286:5). Dr. Marks did not know
`
`
`
`, pursuant to another agreement that Facebook did not
`
`seek during discovery, or not pursuant to any agreement at all. Accordingly, he lacks personal
`
`knowledge of the exact point needed by Facebook for its assent-via-conduct theory.
`2.
`Even if the Court overrules Windy City’s objections to Facebook improper use of Dr.
`
`AIS’s Actual Course of Conduct Does Not Indicate Assent.
`
`Marks’s testimony, his testimony shows that AIS’s conduct does not demonstrate that it assented to
`
`the Work for Hire Agreement. The questions asked in Dr. Marks’s deposition made the factual error
`
`of assuming that the Work for Hire Agreement was the sole contract between AIS and UtiliCorp.
`
`Landmark Properties, Inc. v. Architects International-Chicago, sets forth the common-sense
`
`proposition that conduct may indicate assent to a contract only where it is “clear that the conduct
`
`relates to the specific contract in question.” 526 N.E.2d at 606 (emphasis added). It is unclear what
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`5
`
` 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 186 Filed 03/01/19 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`contract AIS’s actual work proceeded under, and at least the
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2 to Mot. at WC-00023840
`
` Facebook has
`
`“offered no evidence that AIS’s conduct was related specifically to the written [Work for Hire
`
`Agreement] rather than the already existing [previous contract being revised by the Work for Hire
`
`Agreement].” Lundin v. Egyptian Constr. Co., Inc., 331 N.E.2d 208, 211 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975).
`
`Lundin’s conclusion is applicable here, that “since on a motion of summary judgment, all inferences
`
`are to be resolved against the moving party, we must assume that [AIS] was performing pursuant to
`
`the existing [contract] and was not assenting to the terms of the [Work for Hire Agreement].” Id.
`3.
`Even if the Work for Hire Agreement is a valid, enforceable contract, and even if the ’491
`
`The Work for Hire Agreement Is Not a Present Assignment.
`
`Patent Family fell within its scope, the Work for Hire Agreement would still have no effect on
`
`Windy City’s ownership rights because the assignment provision is a mere promise to assign that
`
`never occurred. Recognizing this defect in its theory, Facebook argues that any ambiguity in the
`
`assignment clauses must be construed against AIS and deemed to be automatic. Mot. at 7 n.4. But
`
`that would only be true in a cont