Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`SAMSUNG’S 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
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`3
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`4
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`The Accused Samsung Products Do Not Infringe the “Group Number k”
`Limitation of the ’239 Patent .....................................................................................1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Huawei Varies the Claimed “Group Number k” in Its Infringement
`Analysis, Thereby Violating the Court’s Claim Construction Order .............1
`
`The Accused Products Cannot Infringe Using “u+1” as the Claimed
`“Group Number k” .........................................................................................2
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted ’239 Claims Are Either Invalid as Indefinite Or Not Infringed ...........2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Lack of a Clear Antecedent for “The Sequences” in the
`Asserted Claims Renders Them Invalid as Indefinite ....................................2
`
`In the Alternative, the Accused Samsung Products Do Not Infringe
`Because “The Sequences” Are Not Zadoff-Chu or Gauss Sequences ...........4
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’239 Patent Contain Unpatentable Subject
`Matter .........................................................................................................................5
`
`1.
`
`Huawei Presents No Basis to Challenge the Court’s Holding That
`the Asserted ’239 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea ..........................5
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’239 Patent Contain No Inventive Step .............7
`
`D.
`
`Huawei Fails to Identify Any Evidence That the Accused Samsung
`Products Are Even Capable of Infringing the Asserted ’613 Claims ........................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Test Results Do Not Raise a Genuine Issue of Material Fact ........................9
`
`Huawei’s Remaining Evidence—Marketing Documents and Press
`Releases—Do Not Raise a Genuine Issue of Material Fact .........................11
`
`3.
`
`Samsung’s Noninfringement Arguments Apply Equally to Claim 5 ...........12
`
`E.
`
`Huawei Failed to Identify Any Legally Cognizable Reduction to Practice
`for the Motorola Draft, Which Does Not Qualify as Prior Art as a Matter Of
`Law ...........................................................................................................................13
`
`F.
`
`There is No Inequitable Conduct With Respect to Samsung’s ’105 Patent .............15
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-i-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
` 890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
` 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................................. 7, 8, 9
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
` 154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
` 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ..................................................................................................... 7, 8, 9
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
` 700 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc.,
` 389 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................ 4
`
`Hahn v. Wong,
` 892 F.2d 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Medichem, SA v. Rolabo, SL,
` 437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Murray v. Pennsylvania Mfr. Ass’n Ins. Co.,
` No. CV 17-2282, 2018 WL 1508759 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018) ........................................ 14
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
` 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
` 467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................... 14
`
`Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc.,
` No. 17-CV-03597-WHO, 2018 WL 1730326 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) ......................... 15
`
`Parker v. Flook,
` 437 U.S. 584 (1978) ..................................................................................................... 7, 8, 9
`
`Snyder v. Collura,
` 812 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
` 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................ 6, 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-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
` 278 F.R.D. 505 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ....................................................................................... 14
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp.,
` 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`Additional Authorities
`
`5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g) .......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`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
`-iii-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2
`
`In its Motion, Samsung raised several issues that are ripe for summary judgment. Huawei’s
`
`3
`
`Opposition fails to present any arguments that would generate a genuine issue of material fact.
`
`4
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`The Accused Samsung Products Do Not Infringe the “Group Number k”
`Limitation of the ’239 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Huawei Varies the Claimed “Group Number k” in Its Infringement
`Analysis, Thereby Violating the Court’s Claim Construction Order
`
`In its Motion, Samsung demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to
`
`9
`
`infringement of the ’239 patent because Huawei’s disclosed infringement theory is that the alleged
`
`10
`
`“group number k” was “u” for the “obtain[ing]” limitation, but then “u+1” for the remaining
`
`11
`
`limitations. (Mot., 2-4.) Huawei attempts to avoid summary judgment by now arguing that its
`
`12
`
`expert Dr. Veeravalli consistently asserts that the claimed “group number k” is “u+1.” (See Opp.,
`
`13
`
`2-3.) But in paragraph 252 of the Veeravalli ’239 Infringement Report, Dr. Veeravalli explicitly
`
`14
`
`states in the section on the limitation “obtain[ing] a group number k of a sequence group allocated
`
`15
`
`by the system” that: “[t]he Infringing Samsung Products perform steps required by the LTE standard
`
`16
`
`to obtain a value for “u,” which is allocated by the system as described in Section 5.5.1.3 (Group
`
`17
`
`hopping).” (Dkt. 333-9 ¶ 252.) Dr. Veeravalli then proceeds to explain how the Accused Samsung
`
`18
`
`Products obtain a value “u” allocated by the system by quoting a portion of the LTE standard that
`
`19
`
`defines “[t]he sequence-group number u” in terms of other parameters received from the network.
`
`20
`
`(Id. (“The sequence-group number u in slot ns is defined by a group hopping pattern 𝑓𝑔ℎ(𝑛𝑠) and a
`
`21
`
`sequence-shift pattern 𝑓𝑠𝑠 according to 𝑢 = (𝑓𝑔ℎ(𝑛𝑠) + 𝑓𝑠𝑠)𝑚𝑜𝑑 30 . . . Sequence-group hopping can
`
`22
`
`be enabled or disabled . . . by higher layers. . . . The sequence-shift pattern . . . is configured by
`
`23
`
`higher layers.”) (emphasis added).) Thus, the UE calculates “u” from multiple parameters received
`
`24
`
`from the “higher layers” (i.e., the network). (Id.) Because the only values “allocated” by the system
`
`25
`
`cited by Dr. Veeravalli are the values used to compute the “sequence-group number u,” the value
`
`26
`
`“u” must be the claimed “group number k” that is obtained by the UE. So while Huawei may now
`
`27
`
`assert that its expert points to “u+1” as opposed to “u” for the “obtain[ing]” limitation, Dr.
`
`28
`
`Veeravalli’s ’239 Infringement Report says otherwise.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-1-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`2.
`
`The Accused Products Cannot Infringe Using “u+1” as the Claimed
`“Group Number k”
`
`Even if the Court agrees with Huawei that Dr. Veeravalli consistently construes the claimed
`
`“group number k” as “u+1,” the Samsung Accused Products cannot infringe the “obtain[ing] a group
`
`number k” limitation for a different reason. The claims require “obtain[ing] . . . a group number k
`
`of a sequence group allocated by the system.” (’239 patent at 25:3-5 (emphasis added), 26:17-18.)
`
`Huawei presents no evidence that “u+1” is a value “allocated by the system” that the UE obtains.
`
`Nowhere in the Veeravalli ’239 Infringement Report does Dr. Veeravalli contend that “u+1” is
`
`allocated by the system. (Cf. Dkt. 333-9 ¶ 252 (alleging that the Accused Samsung Products “obtain
`
`a value for ‘u,’ which is allocated by the system”) (emphasis added).)
`
`Nor can he. The only “group number” described in the portion of the LTE standard cited by
`
`Dr. Veeravalli is the “sequence-group number u.” (Dkt. 333-9 (Veeravalli ’239 Infringement
`
`Report) ¶ 252.) By adding 1 to the defined “u” value, the UE transforms “u” from something that
`
`is derived from parameters allocated by the system to something that is neither described as a “group
`
`number” (e.g., group number “u”) in the LTE standard, nor “obtained” by the accused products from
`
`the network. (Id.) Because Dr. Veeravalli has not alleged that the value “u+1” is allocated by the
`
`system (and because it is not, in fact, allocated by the system), the Accused Samsung Products
`
`cannot infringe the asserted claims of the ’239 patent.
`
`Huawei’s doctrine of equivalents argument cannot save its infringement case. (Opp., 3.) As
`
`explained in Samsung’s Motion to Strike and the Reply in support thereof filed concurrently with
`
`this Reply, the doctrine of equivalents argument should be stricken from Dr. Veeravalli’s ’239
`
`Infringement Report because Huawei did not disclose reliance on doctrine of equivalents for the
`
`“obtaining . . . group number k” limitation in its infringement contentions. (Dkt. 334-2 (Motion to
`
`Strike) at 22-24.) For that reason, Huawei’s doctrine of equivalents argument should not be
`
`considered here. In any event, Huawei’s doctrine of equivalents argument fails on the merits as
`
`well. (Mot., 3-4; Dkt. 333-5 (Madisetti Decl.) ¶¶ 15-19.)
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted ’239 Claims Are Either Invalid as Indefinite Or Not Infringed
`
`1.
`
`The Lack of a Clear Antecedent for “The Sequences” in the Asserted
`Claims Renders Them Invalid as Indefinite
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-2-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`As detailed in Samsung’s Motion, the asserted claims are invalid as indefinite because there
`
`2
`
`is no clear antecedent for the limitation in claims 7 and 18 “wherein the sequences correspond to at
`
`3
`
`least one of: Zadoff-Chu sequences and Gauss sequences.” (Mot., 4-7.) Instead, the asserted claims
`
`4
`
`recite more than one set of sequences, and it is ambiguous whether “the sequences” refer back to all
`
`5
`
`of those “sequences,” or some subset, making it impossible to determine the scope of the claimed
`
`6
`
`invention with reasonable certainty and rendering the asserted claims indefinite.
`
`7
`
`Huawei first responds that there is no ambiguity because “the sequences” in claim elements
`
`8
`
`[6E] and [17E] allegedly refer back to “corresponding sequences” in claim elements [6D] and [17D].
`
`9
`
`(Id. at 3-5.) Huawei next asserts that “[t]he claims then refer back to each sequence using different
`
`10
`
`terms.” (Opp., 5.) But Huawei misquotes the claim language in making this argument. Specifically,
`
`11
`
`elements [6C] and [17C] do not refer back to the selected “n sequences” first recited in elements
`
`12
`
`[6B] and [17B] as “the ‘sequences in the candidate sequence collection’” as Huawei contends. (Id.)
`
`13
`
`Rather, those elements merely refer to “a length of a sequence in the candidate sequence collection.”
`
`14
`
`In fact, the term “sequences in the candidate sequence collection” does not appear at all in the
`
`15
`
`asserted claims. Accordingly, Huawei is incorrect when it states that “corresponding sequences . .
`
`16
`
`. is the only remaining sequence without another name used to refer back to it.” (Id.)
`
`17
`
`Huawei’s assertion that the “corresponding sequences” in claim elements [6D] and [17D]
`
`18
`
`“immediately precedes” “the sequences” in claim elements [6E] and [17E] is also incorrect. (See
`
`19
`
`id.) In actuality, “the sequences in the formed sub-group” from claim elements [6D] and [17D] is
`
`20
`
`located between “corresponding sequences” in claim elements [6D] and [17D] and “the sequences”
`
`21
`
`in claim elements [6E] and [17E]. (’239 patent at 25:19-20, 26:30-31.) So based on Huawei’s own
`
`22
`
`logic about the importance of an “immediately preceding” possible antecedent basis, it is equally
`
`23
`
`plausible that the drafter intended for “the sequences” to refer back to “the sequences in the formed
`
`24
`
`sub-group.” This is just the type of confusion that shows indefiniteness inherent in the asserted
`
`25
`
`claims. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014) (“[W]e read §
`
`26
`
`112, ¶ 2 to require that a patent’s claims . . . inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`
`27
`
`invention with reasonable certainty.”) (emphasis added).
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-3-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`Huawei also does not support its argument that “the sequences” in dependent claims 7 and
`
`2
`
`18 must refer back to the same set of sequences as “the sequences” in claim elements [6E] and
`
`3
`
`[17E]. (Opp., 5.) It just repeats its flawed argument discussed above that the asserted claims refer
`
`4
`
`back to each of the three sets of sequences using different terms. (See id.) Here too, Huawei does
`
`5
`
`not explain why “the sequences” in the dependent claims could not refer back to “the sequences in
`
`6
`
`the formed sub-group” in claim elements [6D] and [17D] or any of the preceding “sequences.”
`
`7
`
`Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed.
`
`8
`
`Cir. 2004) (“[T]he same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same
`
`9
`
`meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different
`
`10
`
`meanings at different portions of the claims.”).
`
`11
`
`Huawei also fails to substantively rebut Dr. Veeravalli’s admission that “the sequences” in
`
`12
`
`asserted claim 7 could refer to any one of three equally likely possibilities: “[t]he generated
`
`13
`
`corresponding sequences or the communicated corresponding sequences or the sequences in the
`
`14
`
`subgroup.” (Dkt. 333-11 (“Veeravalli Dep. Tr.”) at 68:25-69:6 (emphasis added).) Huawei says
`
`15
`
`that Dr. Veeravalli “was referring not to three different sequences but to the same sequence in three
`
`16
`
`different scenarios.” (See Opp., 5.) Under Huawei’s interpretation of Dr. Veeravalli’s testimony,
`
`17
`
`each claimed set of “sequences” (of which there are three) thus has multiple different usages or
`
`18
`
`“scenarios”—which only serves to compound the confusion. (See id.) The number of possibilities
`
`19
`
`as to what “the sequences” in asserted dependent claims 7 and 18 could be referring to just continues
`
`20
`
`to grow. Huawei also alleges that Samsung somehow “misuses” Dr. Veeravalli’s testimony as to
`
`21
`
`his understanding of the asserted claims to “make unclear the clear recitation in the claim.” (Id. at
`
`22
`
`6.) Not so. Dr. Veeravalli’s testimony serves to confirm the lack of clarity in the asserted claims.
`
`23
`
`Accordingly, the Court should find the asserted ’239 claims invalid as indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`In the Alternative, the Accused Samsung Products Do Not Infringe
`Because “The Sequences” Are Not Zadoff-Chu or Gauss Sequences
`
`As explained in Samsung’s Opposition to Huawei’s Daubert Motion on Technical Issues,
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of the asserted claims of the ’239 patent requires that “the sequences”
`
`in asserted claims 7 and 18 must be at least equivalent to either Zadoff-Chu or Gauss sequences.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-4-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`(Dkt. 356 at 12-14.) The claim language states that “the sequences correspond to at least one of:
`
`2
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequences and Gauss sequences.” (’239 patent at 25:24-26, 26:35-36.) Huawei does
`
`3
`
`not contend that “the sequences” in the Accused Samsung Products for this limitation are themselves
`
`4
`
`actually Zadoff-Chu or Gauss sequences. (See id.) Instead, Huawei contends that cyclically
`
`5
`
`extending a Zadoff-Chu sequence results in a sequence that might “correspond” to a Zadoff Chu
`
`6
`
`sequence because it “comprise[s] a Zadoff-Chu sequence plus a repetition of as much of that
`
`7
`
`sequence as is necessary to fill out the sequence.” (Opp., 6-7.)
`
`8
`
`But “corresponding” involves more than just being “related to” a particular object. Merriam-
`
`9
`
`Webster defines “correspond” as “to be in conformity or agreement,” “to compare closely: match,”
`
`10
`
`or “to be equivalent or parallel.” (Dkt. 356-6 (emphasis added).) The dictionary.com definition of
`
`11
`
`“correspond” cited by Huawei is functionally equivalent to the Merriam-Webster definition. (See
`
`12
`
`Dkt. 352-3.) It defines “correspond” as “to be in agreement or conformity” and as “equivalent in
`
`13
`
`function, position, amount, etc.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Again, “correspond” requires at least an
`
`14
`
`equivalence. Indeed, Huawei provides no evidence that the use a cyclic extension to modify a root
`
`15
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequence results in a sequence that is equivalent to a Zadoff-Chu sequence. Samsung’s
`
`16
`
`expert, on the other hand, offers unrebutted evidence that the extended sequences are in fact not
`
`17
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequences, as Zadoff-Chu sequences are defined in Formula (1) in the ’239 patent. (See
`
`18
`
`Dkt. 356-4 ¶¶ 92-94; Opp. 6-7 (failing to even allege the extended sequences meet this definition).)
`
`19
`
`In any event, Huawei’s proposed interpretation of “correspond” that it need only be similar
`
`20
`
`would render the asserted claims hopelessly vague and ambiguous. How similar (or related) to
`
`21
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequences must the claimed sequences be in order to infringe? Accordingly, if the
`
`22
`
`Court does not find the asserted claims of the ’239 patent invalid as indefinite, it should, in the
`
`23
`
`alternative, find that the Samsung Accused Products do not infringe the asserted claims.
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’239 Patent Contain Unpatentable Subject Matter
`
`1.
`
`Huawei Presents No Basis to Challenge the Court’s Holding That the
`Asserted ’239 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`The Court has held that the asserted claims of the ’239 patent are directed to an abstract idea
`
`under Alice step one. (Dkt. 103 at 17.) Huawei asks the Court to change its holding based on “a
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-5-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`fuller record” and “Federal Circuit precedent since the ruling.” (Opp., 8.) On this issue however,
`
`2
`
`the record evidence that Huawei points to and the Federal Circuit cases that Huawei cites reveals
`
`3
`
`nothing that justifies a different result than the Court’s previous conclusion.
`
`4
`
`Huawei points to the unsupported opinions of its expert Dr. Veeravalli as the only part of
`
`5
`
`the “record” that did not exist during the briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 39). (Opp.,
`
`6
`
`9.; Dkt. 352-85 (“Veeravalli Declaration”).) But the Veeravalli Declaration actually supports the
`
`7
`
`Court’s holding. Paragraph 12 from the Veeravalli Declaration states that the asserted claims “recite
`
`8
`
`steps for creating a sub-group of sequences, which the inventors determined have a low correlation,”
`
`9
`
`and are therefore “directed to . . . defining subgroups in terms of formulas.” This is nothing more
`
`10
`
`than a lengthier restatement of what the court adopted as the abstract idea of the asserted claims.
`
`11
`
`(Compare Veeravalli Declaration ¶ 12, with Dkt. 103 at 17 (“a formula for dividing numerical
`
`12
`
`sequences into non-highly correlated groups”).) The other paragraph that Huawei cites from the
`
`13
`
`Veeravalli Declaration only contains opinions about the results of implementing the asserted claims,
`
`14
`
`not about the actual language of those claims. (See Veeravalli Declaration ¶ 11 (“The claimed
`
`15
`
`invention therefore helps to reduce interference at the base station . . . and increases the base station’s
`
`16
`
`ability to distinguish UEs in its cell.”).) Accordingly, the Veeravalli Declaration actually supports
`
`17
`
`the Court’s holding and does not create a disputed issue of fact.
`
`18
`
`The Federal Circuit cases cited by Huawei that were issued after the Court’s decision on
`
`19
`
`Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss also do not warrant a change in the Court’s holding. First, Huawei
`
`20
`
`never explains which of those cases (if any) changed the analysis under § 101 and how the analysis
`
`21
`
`was changed. (Opp., 8-11.) Second, those cases are either inapposite or did not change the existing
`
`22
`
`framework for analyzing claims under § 101. For example, Huawei cites Thales Visionix Inc. v.
`
`23
`
`United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for the proposition that “the presence of a
`
`24
`
`mathematical formula in a claim does not make it abstract.” (Opp., 9.) But that was never
`
`25
`
`Samsung’s argument, nor was it part of the Court’s prior conclusion. (Dkt. 103 at 17 (noting
`
`26
`
`Huawei’s argument that “including math does not render claims patent ineligible” and holding that
`
`27
`
`the ’239 claims are directed to an abstract idea on other grounds).) Instead, the abstract idea
`
`28
`
`contained in the asserted claims—creating groups of numeric sequences that are not highly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-6-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`correlated with each other—is revealed by the claim language and the specification of the ’239
`
`2
`
`patent, not by the mere presence of a mathematical formula. (Dkt. 103 at 17; Mot., 11-12.)
`
`3
`
`Additionally, the patent claims at issue in Thales Visionix differ from the asserted claims
`
`4
`
`here in that they did not explicitly include a mathematical formula and only implicitly invoked
`
`5
`
`standard physics formulas for determining position. 850 F.3d at 1345-46, 1348-49. In contrast, the
`
`6
`
`asserted claims of the ’239 patent explicitly include mathematical formulas and those formulas are
`
`7
`
`the allegedly novel portions of the claims. (See Mot., 11-12.)1 The portions of the other two recent
`
`8
`
`Federal Circuit cases cited by Huawei do not change existing precedent either. See Aatrix Software,
`
`9
`
`Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring
`
`10
`
`in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc); Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., 867 F.3d
`
`11
`
`1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (merely restating the test set forth in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`12
`
`822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`13
`
`14
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’239 Patent Contain No Inventive Step
`
`As detailed in Samsung’s Motion, inventor Bingyu Qu admitted that he did not invent the
`
`15
`
`generation of reference signal sequences. (Dkt. 333-18 at 104:9-11.) Samsung also pointed out that
`
`16
`
`Dr. Veeravalli does not contest the opinion of Dr. Madisetti that all of the non-mathematical
`
`17
`
`equation elements of the asserted claims are disclosed by the prior art. (Dkt. 333-13 ¶ 142.) Huawei
`
`18
`
`ignores this evidence in its Opposition.
`
`19
`
`Instead, Huawei disputes Samsung’s application of the legal principles from Parker v. Flook,
`
`20
`
`437 U.S. 584 (1978). Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), did not reverse Flook, contrary to
`
`21
`
`what Huawei suggests. At no point in Diehr did the Supreme Court say that it was reversing any
`
`22
`
`aspect of its holding from a mere three years earlier in Flook. See, e.g., 450 U.S. at 185 (“Our recent
`
`23
`
`holdings in Gottschalk v. Benson . . . and Parker v. Flook . . . both of which are computer-related,
`
`24
`
`stand for no more than these long-established principles.”); see also Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`1 Huawei’s complaint that Samsung’s Motion “cites nothing but the claims and the specification”
`as part of the Alice step one analysis makes no sense. (Opp., 10.) The very case that Huawei cites,
`Thales Visionix, focuses exclusively on the claims and specification of the patent at issue in
`conducting the Alice step one analysis. 850 F.3d at 1348-49.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-7-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 370 Filed 07/24/18 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014) (describing the relationship between Flook and Diehr). Instead,
`
`2
`
`the Supreme Court in Diehr dealt with an entirely different set of claims than in Flook, which led to
`
`3
`
`a different result. The claims in Diehr involved a process for curing synthetic rubber that
`
`4
`
`“employ[ed] a well-known mathematical equation” (the Arrhenius equation). Id. at 187. The
`
`5
`
`Supreme Court explained that the claims at issue presented a “more efficient” process that was
`
`6
`
`“created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth,” while not claiming that scientific truth in
`
`7
`
`isolation. Id. at 188. Indeed, a review of the claims at issue in Diehr reveals that only a small
`
`8
`
`portion of each claim recited the Arrhenius equation, while the remainder of each claim described
`
`9
`
`the more efficient process by which synthetic rubber could be cured. See id. at 179 n.5. In essence,
`
`10
`
`the Arrhenius equation was not the focus of the claims at issue in Diehr but was rather a tool used
`
`11
`
`in the implementation of the useful process described in those claims. See id.
`
`12
`
`The claim at issue in Flook was much different. It was a method claim almost entirely
`
`13
`
`devoted to a mathematical equation for an alarm limit. See 437 U.S. at 596-97. Indeed, it is difficult
`
`14
`
`to select portions of the claim in Flook that are not related to the claimed mathematical formula.
`
`15
`
`See id. The last limitation—“[a]djusting said alarm limit to said updated alarm limit value”—is
`
`16
`
`arguably the only such limitation, aside from the limitation of the claim to the technological
`
`17
`
`environment of “the catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons.” See id. The Supreme Court focused on
`
`18
`
`the process in the claim as a whole and held that the limitation of the process to a particular
`
`19
`
`technological environment and the addition of conventional post-solution activity was insufficient
`
`20
`
`to take the claim out of the realm of unpatentable subject matter. Id. at 589-90; see also Diehr, 450
`
`21
`
`U.S. at 191 (“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . .
`
`22
`
`and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
`
`23
`
`technological environment.”) (citing Flook).
`
`24
`
`The asserted claims of the ’239 patent are much closer to the algorithm-focused claim in
`
`25
`
`Flook than the process-oriented claims in Diehr. As explained in the Motion, only a couple of
`
`26
`
`limitations at the end of those claims are not related to the claimed mathematical formula. (Mot.,
`
`27
`
`13 (describing the limitations of “generating . . . sequences . . .” and “communicating . . . according
`
`28
`
`to the sequences . . .”).) Those basic steps of generating the sequences and sending them to the base
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-8-
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-