Case 1:17-cv-00386-CFC-CJB Document 78 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 898
`
`TECHNO VIEW IP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-386 (CFC)(CJB)
`
`DEFENDANTS FACEBOOK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND FACEBOOK, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF TECHNO VIEW IP INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO THE
`AUGUST 15, 2018 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONSTRUING
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`jying@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Facebook Technologies,
`LLC and Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Mark R. Weinstein
`Elizabeth L. Stameshkin
`Philip H. Mao
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 843-5000
`
`DeAnna Allen
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2400
`(202) 842-7800
`
`September 12, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-CFC-CJB Document 78 Filed 09/12/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 899
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and D. Del. LR 72.1, Defendants Facebook Technologies,
`
`LLC1 and Facebook, Inc. provide the following response to Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc.’s
`
`Objections (D.I. 75, “Objections”) to the August 15, 2018 Report and Recommendation (D.I. 74,
`
`“Report”) regarding disputed claim construction terms. For the reasons set forth below,
`
`Defendants respectfully request the Court adopt the Report in full.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`“buffer”
`
`The Report correctly recommends that the term “buffer” be construed to mean a
`
`“memory location for temporary storage of image-related data.” (D.I. 74 at 11.) Plaintiff’s
`
`primary contention in its Objections is that the “buffer” claimed in the patents-in-suit could
`
`“contain non-image data as well” as image-related data, and therefore requests that “buffer” be
`
`construed to mean “memory location for temporary storage of data.” (D.I. 75 at 1.) But this
`
`contention is based on a faulty premise.
`
`First, the shared specification of the patents-in-suit does not set forth any examples of a
`
`“buffer” storing any non-image related data. The Report specifically found that each of the
`
`specification citations set forth by the Plaintiff during the Markman hearing “did not support the
`
`notion that the ‘buffer’ recited in the claims stores something other than image-related data.”
`
`(D.I. 74 at 10.) In its Objections, Plaintiff purports to cite to two new passages – Figure 5A and
`
`column 9, lines 26-30 of the ‘096 Patent – in support of its argument. (D.I. 75 at 1.) Not only
`
`are such new arguments improper,2 they are unavailing. Neither of the citations refers to a
`
`
`Facebook Technologies, LLC was previously known as Oculus VR, LLC. D.I. 77.
`1
`2
`Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the District of Delaware Standing Order for Objections Filed
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Plaintiff failed to include a certification that “the objections do not
`raise new legal/factual arguments, or identifying the new arguments and describing the good
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-CFC-CJB Document 78 Filed 09/12/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 900
`
`
`“buffer” – rather they refer to generic “memory.” But even if these citations supported
`
`Plaintiff’s argument (which they do not), the Report’s recommended construction was not
`
`“memory location for temporary storage of only image-related data,” rendering Plaintiff’s
`
`request for a revised construction unnecessary. (See D.I. 73, 6/19/18 Markman Tr. at 41:17-23.)
`
`As such, the Report’s recommended construction of “buffer” is correct, and Defendants
`
`respectfully request the Court adopt this construction.
`
`B.
`
`“left backbuffer” and “right backbuffer”
`
`The Report also correctly recommends constructions for the terms “left backbuffer” and
`
`“right backbuffer.” (D.I. 74 at 17.) Plaintiff objects to the Report’s recommended construction
`
`for “left backbuffer”: “memory location where the left image is temporarily stored, and that, at a
`
`given point in time, stores a separate image from any stored in the right backbuffer.” (D.I. 74 at
`
`17.) Plaintiff’s sole argument against this construction relies on an inaccurate reading of the
`
`Report’s ruling, new argument, and a newly proposed construction.
`
`Although, claim 1 of the ’096 patent contemplates a scenario where no image is stored in
`
`the “right backbuffer,” the Report’s recommended construction for “left backbuffer” allows for
`
`such a scenario. This construction does not refer to “the image stored in the right backbuffer,” as
`
`Plaintiff appears to argue, but rather, it makes clear that the image stored in the left backbuffer
`
`must be different from “any image stored in the right backbuffer” (emphasis added). (D.I. 74 at
`
`17.) This is consistent with the language of claim 1 of the ’096 patent. Plaintiff’s new
`
`construction for “left backbuffer” adds no clarity to the Report’s construction. As no change
`
`cause for failing to previously raise the new legal/factual arguments before the Magistrate
`Judge.” Defendants have identified such new arguments and proposed constructions throughout
`this response, and respectfully request the Court disregard any such arguments. For example,
`here, Plaintiff’s argument that Figure 5A and Column 9, lines 26-30 supports its construction of
`“buffer” is an argument that was neither made in its brief nor at the hearing. See D.I. 47, Ex. A
`at 15-16; D.I. 52 at 1-2 (citing ‘096 Patent, column 6:40-47), D.I. 59 at 1-2; D.I. 73 (6/19/18
`Markman Tr.) at 20:13-22:1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-CFC-CJB Document 78 Filed 09/12/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 901
`
`
`need be made to the construction for “left backbuffer,” the construction for “right backbuffer”
`
`should also remain unchanged.
`
`C.
`
`“frontbuffer”
`
`Finally, the Report correctly recommends a construction for the term “frontbuffer”: a
`
`“memory location for temporary storage of an image received from the backbuffer to be
`
`displayed.” (D.I. 74 at 18.) As the Report explains, the parties did not dispute that an image
`
`arrives to the “frontbuffer” from a backbuffer. (Id. (citing D.I. 73, 6/19/18 Markman Tr. at 56-
`
`57, 61-62).) In particular, Plaintiff’s counsel explained at the hearing that, for a “frontbuffer,”
`
`“[t]he image also arrives from the corresponding back buffer.” (D.I. 73, 6/19/18 Markman Tr. at
`
`56-57.)
`
`In contrast to that representation, Plaintiff now proposes an improper new construction
`
`that was neither briefed nor argued before the Court. Although Plaintiff is correct that dependent
`
`claim 14 refers to a “buffer” and a “frontbuffer,” rather than a “backbuffer” and a “frontbuffer,”
`
`this does not warrant any change from the Report’s recommended construction. The “buffer” in
`
`claim 14 is consistent with the Report’s recommended construction of “backbuffer”: a “memory
`
`location for temporary storage of an image without it being outputted to the display, and before
`
`being transferred to a frontbuffer.” As such, the “buffer” in claim 14 is acting as a “backbuffer,”
`
`making Plaintiff’s requested edit to the Report’s construction unnecessary and inconsistent with
`
`its previous representations to the Court.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court overrule
`
`Plaintiff’s objections, and adopt the Report in full.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-CFC-CJB Document 78 Filed 09/12/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 902
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`_______________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`jying@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Facebook Technologies,
`LLC and Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Mark R. Weinstein
`Elizabeth L. Stameshkin
`Philip H. Mao
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 843-5000
`
`DeAnna Allen
`COOLEY LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20004-2400
`(202) 842-7800
`
`September 12, 2018
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00386-CFC-CJB Document 78 Filed 09/12/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 903
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 12, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
`
`
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`September 12, 2018, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Sean T. O’Kelly, Esquire
`Daniel P. Murray, Esquire
`O’KELLY & ERNST, LLC
`901 North Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc.
`
`Thomas F. Meagher, Esquire
`A. Christopher Pattillo, Esquire
`Michael D. Loughnane, Esquire
`MEAGHER EMANUEL LAKS GOLDBERG &
` LIAO, LLP
`One Palmer Square, Suite 325
`Princeton, NJ 08542
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc.
`
`Mark R. Schneider, Esquire
`VertexLex
`2500 E. Imperial Hwy, Suite 201
`Brea, CA 92821-6121
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Techno View IP, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`
`
`
`
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`
`
`
`
`
`