Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
`charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
`David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)
`davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`
`SAMSUNG’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`
`Hearing Date: August 8, 2018
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`
`
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. &
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., & HISILICON
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 8, 2018, at 2 PM, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`3
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) shall and hereby do move the
`
`4
`
`Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment. This motion is based
`
`5
`
`on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities, the supporting
`
`6
`
`declaration of Vijay Madisetti, Ph.D., the accompanying exhibits, and such other written or oral
`
`7
`
`argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is deemed submitted by the Court.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Samsung seeks an order granting summary
`
`10
`
`judgment of: (1) non-infringement of claims 7 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239 (“the ’239
`
`11
`
`patent”); (2) invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112, or in the alternative non-infringement, of claims 7
`
`12
`
`and 18 of the ’239 patent; (3) non-infringement of claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,724,613; (4)
`
`13
`
`invalidity of claims 7 and 18 of the ’239 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (5) a finding that one of the
`
`14
`
`invalidity references raised by Huawei against Samsung’s U.S. Patent No. RE44,105 (“the ’105
`
`15
`
`patent”) does not qualify as prior art and cannot invalidate the ’105 patent as a matter of law; and
`
`16
`
`(6) no inequitable conduct by Samsung or the inventor during prosecution related to the ’105 patent.
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`DATED: July 3, 2018
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`By
`
`/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Victoria F. Maroulis
`David A. Perlson
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-i-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`3
`
`INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
`
`4
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`5
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................2
`
`6
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’239 PATENT ........................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’239 Patent and Huawei’s Allegations ................................................................2
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe the “Group Number k” Limitations ............2
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Either Invalid as Indefinite or Not Infringed ....................4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Lack of a Clear Antecedent for “The Sequences” in the
`Asserted Claims Renders Them Invalid as Indefinite ....................................5
`
`In the Alternative, the Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of
`Non-Infringement ...........................................................................................7
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Claims in the ’239 Patent Are Invalid Under § 101 .............................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Court Correctly Found the ’239 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea .........11
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’239 Patent Contain No Inventive Step ...........12
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’613 PATENT ........................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’613 Patent and Huawei’s Allegations ..............................................................14
`
`The “Evidence” Put Forth by Huawei Fails to Show that the Accused
`Products Infringe the Claimed Receiving a Service .................................................16
`
`III.
`
`SAMSUNG’S ’105 PATENT IS NOT INVALID IN VIEW OF MOTOROLA ................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Relevant Factual Background ..................................................................................18
`
`The Motorola Draft Does Not Qualify As Prior Art to the ’105 Patent ...................19
`
`THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT WITH RESPECT
`TO SAMSUNG’S ’105 PATENT ........................................................................................20
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................22
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-i-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`1st Media, LLC v. Elec. Arts, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 21
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................................ 10, 11, 12
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Grow More, Inc.,
`423 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`Celotext Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................................................................................... 1, 9
`
`Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs,
`545 F. Supp.2d 447 (D.N.J. 2008) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`In re Costello,
`717 F.2d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................... 19
`
`Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 17
`
`Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................. 9
`
`Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 19
`
`Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp.,
`492 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 17
`
`Jazz Photo Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ...................................................................................................... 5, 7
`
`Nutrinova Nutrition Specialities & Food Ingredients GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`224 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-ii-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ...................................................................................................... 10, 12
`
`Roberts v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`665 F. Supp. 671 (N.D. Ill. 1987) ....................................................................................... 19
`
`Scimed Life Sys. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12862 (D. Del. 2001) ....................................................................... 19
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 20
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................... 20, 21, 22
`
`Statutes
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................... 9, 10, 12, 13
`
`11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................................... 20
`
`12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g) .................................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 111(b)(5) ...................................................................................................................... 19
`
`14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 ....................................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) ........................................................................................................................ 19
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-iii-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Samsung seeks summary judgment on a targeted set of issues concerning non-infringement
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3
`
`and invalidity of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.’s (“Huawei”) ’239 and ’613 patents, a finding that
`
`4
`
`a reference asserted by Huawei against Samsung’s ’105 patent does not qualify as prior art and
`
`5
`
`therefore cannot invalidate the ’105 patent as a matter of law, and that there was no inequitable
`
`6
`
`conduct with respect to the ’105 patent. For the reasons set forth below, there are no triable issues
`
`7
`
`of material fact as to any of these issues and summary adjudication is warranted.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment if there
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`10
`
`are no genuine issues as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
`
`11
`
`of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party bears the
`
`12
`
`initial burden of demonstrating the basis for motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings,
`
`13
`
`depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file that establish the absence
`
`14
`
`of a triable issue of material fact. Celotext Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving
`
`15
`
`party meets this initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present specific
`
`16
`
`facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324;
`
`17
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). The non-movant’s
`
`18
`
`bare assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to create a material issue of fact and defeat a motion
`
`19
`
`for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. An issue of fact is material if, under the
`
`20
`
`substantive law of the case, resolution of the factual dispute might affect the case’s outcome. Id. at
`
`21
`
`248. Factual disputes are genuine if they “properly can be resolved in favor of either party.” Id. at
`
`22
`
`250. Thus, a genuine issue for trial exists if the non-movant presents evidence from which a
`
`23
`
`reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in light most favorable to that party, could resolve the material
`
`24
`
`issue in its favor. Id. However, “[i]f the [non-movant’s] evidence is merely colorable, or is not
`
`25
`
`significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249-50 (internal citations
`
`26
`
`omitted).
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-1-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`I.
`
`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
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’239 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’239 Patent and Huawei’s Allegations
`
`The ’239 patent (Ex. A)1 is directed to the generation of reference signals for use in
`
`communication systems. (Id. at Abstract.) Reference signals are known sequences with desirable
`
`properties that can be used to estimate channel conditions, such as fading and scattering of radio
`
`signal as the signal propagates along the channel. (Id. at 1:50-54.) For example, a receiver such as
`
`a base station may receive known reference signals from a mobile device in order to estimate the
`
`channel fading and interference associated with transmissions from that mobile device. (Id. at 1:55-
`
`67.) The base station can then use the estimated channel conditions in order to better demodulate
`
`the data signal received from the mobile device. (Id. at 3:30-48.)
`
`Huawei alleges that the Accused Samsung Products infringe the ’239 patent by “
`
`
`
`
`
`.” (Ex. B, Expert Report of Dr. Veeravalli
`
`Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239 (“Veeravalli Rep.”) ¶¶ 52, 78.) Asserted
`
`claims 7 and 18 depend from independent claims 6 and 17. (Id. at ¶¶ 82-83.) Claims 6 and 7 recite
`
`a method for processing sequences in a communication system, while claims 17 and 18 recite the
`
`corresponding apparatus.
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe the “Group Number k” Limitations
`
`The asserted claims are not infringed under this Court’s constructions. The first step of
`
`independent claims 6 and 17 recites “obtain[ing] a group number k of a sequence group allocated
`
`by [a/the] system.” (Ex. A at Cl. 6, 17.) The claims go on to later recite that “a value of a basic
`
`sequence index ri in the sub-group i in the sequence group k is at least one of ⌊𝑘∙𝑁𝑖/𝑁1⌋, ⌈𝑘∙𝑁𝑖/𝑁1⌉,
`
`⌊𝑘∙𝑁𝑖 /𝑁1⌋ +1 or ⌈𝑘∙𝑁𝑖/𝑁1⌉ − 1.” (Id.) The Court construed the “a group number k . . .” phrase to
`
`mean “a group number k allocated by the system, where the group number k identifies a sequence
`
`
`
`1 All Exhibits referenced herein are attached to the Declaration of Brian Mack in Support of
`Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mack Decl.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-2-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`group and where the value k is the same throughout the claim.” (Dkt. 168 at 7-9 (emphasis
`
`2
`
`added).)
`
`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
`
`As to the limitation of “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-3-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown above, Dr. Veeravalli twists and contorts the value k whenever it suits his needs
`
`
`
`12
`
`in order to force infringement where there is none. Because Huawei’s expert’s infringement analysis
`
`13
`
`defies this Court’s Claim Construction Order, the Court should grant summary judgment of non-
`
`14
`
`infringement.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Either Invalid as Indefinite or Not Infringed
`
`The asserted claims are either invalid or not infringed for a second, independent reason.
`
`17
`
`Both asserted claims 7 and 18 contain the limitation “wherein the sequences correspond to at least
`
`18
`
`one of: Zadoff-Chu sequences and Gauss sequences.” The asserted claims, however, recite more
`
`19
`
`than one set of sequences and it is ambiguous whether “the sequences” refer back to all of those
`
`20
`
`“sequences,” or some subset of them, making it impossible to determine the scope of the claimed
`
`21
`
`invention with reasonable certainty and rendering the asserted claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`22
`
`112 ¶ 2. But even if Huawei’s interpretation that “the sequences” in claims 7 and 18 refer to the last
`
`23
`
`set of sequences recited in independent claims 6 and 17 is adopted, summary judgment of non-
`
`24
`
`infringement is appropriate because Huawei provides no evidence that theses sequences are Zadoff-
`
`25
`
`Chu sequences, as required by the asserted claims.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-4-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The Lack of a Clear Antecedent for “The Sequences” in the Asserted
`Claims Renders Them Invalid as Indefinite
`
`In order to be valid, 35 USC § 112 ¶ 2 requires that “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the
`
`specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention
`
`with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
`
`While “absolute certainty” is not required to satisfy the definiteness requirement, a patent must be
`
`“precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby ‘appris[ing] the public of what is
`
`still open to them.’” Id. at 2129. “Otherwise there would be ‘[a] zone of uncertainty which
`
`enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims.’” Id. This “zone
`
`of uncertainty” is squarely present here for the “the sequences” limitation in the asserted claims.
`
`The asserted claims refer to multiple “sequences.” In particular, the independent claims use
`
`the term “sequences” in several different
`
`places,
`
`referring
`
`to
`
`the
`
`(1) “selected”
`
`sequences, (2) “formed” sequences, and (3)
`
`“generated”
`
`sequences.
`
` For
`
`example,
`
`independent claim 6 recites that “n sequences”
`
`are “select[ed]” from a candidate sequence
`
`collection. (Ex. A at Cl. 6.) Then, sequences
`
`are “form[ed]” in a “sub-group i in a sequence
`
`group k.” Finally, “corresponding sequences”
`
`are generated “according to the sequences in
`
`the formed sub-group.” The plain language of
`
`claim 6 therefore requires at least three claimed
`
`sequences: the selected sequences, the formed sequences, and the generated, corresponding
`
`sequences.2 (See Ex. D, Expert Report of Dr. Veeravalli Regarding Validity of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,644,239 (“Veeravalli Reb. Rep.”) ¶ 94 (“
`
`s
`
`
`
`2 Claims 17 and 18 correspond to claims 6 and 7 and contain the same ambiguity.
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-5-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`.”) (emphasis added).) Dependent claim 7 also references “the sequences” and
`
`2
`
`requires them to “correspond to at least one of: Zadoff-Chu sequences and Gauss sequences.” (Ex.
`
`3
`
`A at Cl. 7.)
`
`4
`
`But, the claims do not specify which of the previously recited three “sequences” in the
`
`5
`
`independent claims constitute “the sequences” recited later in the dependent claims. So a person of
`
`6
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the proper antecedent basis (i.e., to which
`
`7
`
`instance of “sequences” the term “the sequences” referred). Neither the claim language nor the
`
`8
`
`specification (which merely parrots the claim language) resolves the ambiguity.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Even Huawei’s expert acknowledges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The specification of the ’239 patent itself
`
`18
`
`describes the “cyclic extension” process used to generate separate, longer “corresponding”
`
`19
`
`sequences from the selected sequences before those sequences are transmitted:
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`When the number of sub-carriers that bear the sequence in the cell is not a prime
`number, it is necessary to select the sequence whose length is equal to the prime
`number around the number of sub-carriers, and the desired sequence is obtained
`through sequence segmentation or cyclic extension of the sequence before being
`transmitted.
`
`23
`
`(Ex. A at 11:33-38.)
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Because, as acknowledged by Huawei’s own expert,
`
`
`
` the claim is capable of being interpreted in
`
`26
`
`multiple competing ways, each with a different claim scope. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`27
`
`would not understand which of the multiple competing interpretations was the correct interpretation;
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-6-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`hence, the claim fails to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with
`
`2
`
`reasonable certainty and is thus indefinite.
`
`In his report, Huawei’s expert contends
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` There can be no credible dispute, therefore,
`
`that the asserted claims’ confused and ambiguous use of the term “the sequences” renders the claims
`
`indefinite because the claims fail to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention
`
`with reasonable certainty and leave a zone of uncertainty surrounding their proper scope. Nautilus,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2129. The Court should grant summary judgment of invalidity under § 112 ¶ 2.
`
`2.
`
`In the Alternative, the Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of
`Non-Infringement
`
`If the accused products fail to satisfy even a single limitation of the claims, they do not
`
`infringe. Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp., 492 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Biagro Western Sales,
`
`Inc. v. Grow More, Inc., 423 F.3d 1296, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The party asserting patent
`
`infringement has the burden of proving infringement, and thus the burden of establishing that each
`
`and every limitation in the asserted claim is met. Jazz Photo Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 264 F.3d
`
`1094, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The initial burden is upon the complainant to establish its cause of
`
`action, here patent infringement; the patentee must present evidence sufficient to establish that one
`
`or more patent claims are infringed.”); Nutrinova Nutrition Specialities & Food Ingredients GmbH
`
`v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 224 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“As a general proposition, the law
`
`places the burden of proving infringement on the patentee who alleges it.”).
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-7-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`To the extent the Court adopts Huawei’s interpretation that
`
`
`
`
`
`, summary judgment of non-infringement would still be appropriate.3
`
`4
`
`Huawei and its expert have not advanced any evidence that
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`as required by asserted claims 7 and 18. Nor could they as the undisputed evidence confirms that
`
`7
`
`the alleged “corresponding” sequences are not Zadoff-Chu or Gauss sequences.
`
`8
`
`With respect to claim 7, it is undisputed that both Zadoff-Chu sequences and Gauss
`
`9
`
`sequences are well defined sequences defined by specific formula contained in the ’239 patent. (Ex.
`
`10
`
`A at Formula (1) (Zadoff-Chu sequences), Formula (2) (Gauss sequences);
`
`11
`
`12
`
`).) Huawei and its expert do not present any evidence or opinion regarding the
`
`
`
`13
`
`existence of any Gauss sequences in the accused products. Instead, they allege that the accused
`
`14
`
`products use a Zadoff-Chu sequence. (Veeravalli Rep. ¶¶ 443, 446, 450.)
`
`15
`
`The only supposed disclosure of Zadoff-Chu sequences in the LTE standard relied upon by
`
`16
`
`Huawei’s expert is “
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 If the Court finds “the sequences” refers back to all the previously recited instances of
`“sequences” in the independent claims, then the same result would hold because there is no
`evidence that at least the generated “corresponding” sequences recited in the independent claims
`are Zadoff-Chu or Gauss sequences, as required by the asserted claims.
`4 Resource blocks are allocated to user terminals and 12 subcarriers are used per resource
`block. If m = 3 (3 resource blocks are allocated), that represents 3 x 12 or 36 subcarriers.
`(Veeravalli Dep. Tr. 54:20-55:7.) In this example, the root sequence of length 31 must be cyclic
`shifted and extended by 5 bits to generate the claimed “corresponding” sequence of 36 bits.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-8-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`̅
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
` Summary judgment is therefore appropriate. Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Inc., 442 F.3d 1301, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (summary judgment proper when “patentee had no
`
`8
`
`evidence of infringement” and movant “point[s] to the specific ways in which accused systems did
`
`9
`
`not meet the claim limitations”); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)
`
`10
`
`(summary judgment appropriate where “there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving
`
`11
`
`party’s case”).
`
`12
`
`Although summary judgment is appropriate given the absence of any proof by Huawei that
`
`13
`
`this limitation is met, Samsung’s expert, Dr. Madisetti, provides unrebutted evidence that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Since there is no genuine issue of material fact that Huawei has not shown that the claimed
`
`
`
`22
`
`“corresponding” sequences are Zadoff-Chu sequences, as required by the asserted claims, the Court
`
`23
`
`should grant summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’239 patent if it does not grant summary
`
`24
`
`judgment of invalidity.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Claims in the ’239 Patent Are Invalid Under § 101
`
`As detailed above, asserted claims 7 and 18 claim creating groups of numeric sequences that
`
`27
`
`are not highly correlated with each other. Eligibility for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`28
`
`involves a two-step analysis that first asks whether the claims at issue are directed to an abstract
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-9-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 336 Filed 07/04/18 Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`1
`
`idea. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If so, then the second step
`
`2
`
`in the analysis asks the questions of whether the claims at issue contain some “inventive concept”
`
`3
`
`that take them out of the realm of patent eligibility. Id. The Supreme Court has defined an
`
`4
`
`“inventive concept” as “an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the
`
`5
`
`patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id.
`
`6
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`7
`
`Parker v. Flook provides further insight into determining patent eligibility under § 101 for
`
`8
`
`claims, like in the ’239 patent, that include mathematical formulas. 437 U.S. 584 (1978). For such
`
`9
`
`claims that are “directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even
`
`10
`
`if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.” Id. at 595. Determining
`
`11
`
`whether a claim is “directed essentially to a method of calculating” involves assuming that the
`
`12
`
`mathematical formula present in the claims falls within the prior art. Id. at 594. If the remaining
`
`13
`
`portions of the claims present no patentable invention (i.e., have no “inventive concept”), then the
`
`14
`
`claims contain patentable-ineligible subject matter under § 101. Id. The idea is that a mathematical
`
`15
`
`formula cannot be made patent eligible by pairing it with “post-solution activity, no matter how
`
`16
`
`conventional or obvious.” Id. at 590.
`
`17
`
`Here, this abstract idea of creating groups of numeric sequences that are not highly correlated
`
`18
`
`with each other does not have an accompanying inventive step that takes the asserted claims out of
`
`19
`
`the realm of patent-ineligible subject matter. The Court previously considered this issue in the
`
`20
`
`context of Samsung’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 39.) The Court held
`
`21
`
`that the asserted claims of the ’239 patent are directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one. (Dkt.
`
`22
`
`103 at 17.) However, the Court ultimately denied Samsung’s Motion with respect to the ’239 patent
`
`23
`
`because it found that the asserted claims “contain enough of an inventive concept” under Alice step
`
`24
`
`2 “at least based on the allegations in the Complaint.” (Id. at 17-18.) But as detailed further below,
`
`25
`
`it is now clear after discovery that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the l