Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 35931
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: 18-cv-966-CFC-CJB
`
`
`
`VLSI'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
`INTEL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 4 OF NO
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,523,331 (D.I. 820)
`
`Dated: February 15, 2022
`
`(Intel's MSJ # 4)
`
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone : (302) 777-0300
`Fax : (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Morgan Chu (admitted pro hac vice)
`Benjamin Hattenbach (admitted pro hac vice)
`Iian D. Jablon (admitted pro hac vice)
`Christopher Abernethy (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ian Washburn (admitted pro hac vice)
`Amy E. Proctor (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`11066042
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: 18-cv-966-CFC-CJB
`
`
`
`VLSI'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
`INTEL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 4 OF NO
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,523,331 (D.I. 820)
`
`Dated: February 15, 2022
`
`(Intel's MSJ # 4)
`
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone : (302) 777-0300
`Fax : (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Morgan Chu (admitted pro hac vice)
`Benjamin Hattenbach (admitted pro hac vice)
`Iian D. Jablon (admitted pro hac vice)
`Christopher Abernethy (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ian Washburn (admitted pro hac vice)
`Amy E. Proctor (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`11066042
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 35932
`
`
`
`Dominik Slusarczyk (admitted pro hac vice)
`S. Adina Stohl (admitted pro hac vice)
`Charlotte J. Wen (admitted pro hac vice)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`mchu@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`ijablon@irell.com
`cabernethy@irell.com
`iwashburn@irell.com
`aproctor@irell.com
`dslusarczyk@irell.com
`astohl@irell.com
`cwen@irell.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11066042
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 35933
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................... 1
`INTEL DIRECLTY INFRINGES ................................................................ 1
`A.
`Intel Directly Infringes At Least By Testing ...................................... 1
`B.
`Intel Directly Infringes By
` ................................... 2
`INTEL'S MOTION REGARDING DAMAGES SHOULD BE
`DENIED........................................................................................................ 4
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 4
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`11066042
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 35934
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases1
`Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D. Del. 2018) ...................................................................... 4
`Akamai Techs. v. Limelight Networks,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ........................................................ 2, 3
`Carnegie Mellon U. v. Marvell Tech. Grp.,
`807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 1, 4
`Centillion Data Sys. v. Qwest Commcn's Int'l,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 3, 4
`Sapphire Crossing v. Robinhood Markets,
`2021 WL 149023 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2021) ............................................................ 1
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ............................................................................................. 1, 2, 3
`
`
`
`
`1 All emphases added. All subsequent history and internal citations omitted,
`unless otherwise noted.
`
`11066042
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 35935
`
`
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`Intel's ME/CSME subsystem infringes the '331 Patent. Its firmware runs on
`
`Intel's chipsets (platform controller hubs or "PCHs") embedded within host systems.
`
`ME/CSME subsystems use DRAM memory
`
`.
`
`Intel directly infringes based on Intel's actions concerning chipsets embedded
`
`within host systems, including by testing chipsets, and
`
`.
`
`VLSI offers damages theories for all acts of infringement, including testing.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Pertinent facts are below and in the Responsive Concise Statement of Facts
`
`("RSOF").
`
`III.
`
`INTEL DIRECLTY INFRINGES
`A.
`
`Intel Directly Infringes At Least By Testing
`
`Direct infringement includes "making" or "using." 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). This
`
`includes testing. Carnegie Mellon U. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., 807 F.3d 1283, 1296-97
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming direct infringement via testing); Sapphire Crossing v.
`
`Robinhood Markets, 2021 WL 149023, at *3-4 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2021) (same).
`
`Intel
`
`, "making" and "using"
`
`the ME/CSME subsystem. RSOF ¶ 1.
`
` RSOF ¶ 2.
`
`- 1 -
`
`11066042
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 35936
`
`
`
` RSOF ¶¶ 3-4.
`
`B.
`
`Intel Directly Infringes By
`
`
`
`Intel also infringes when Intel's ME/CSME firmware
`
` "making" infringing ME/CSME subsystems. RSOF ¶ 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` RSOF ¶¶ 5-7.
`
`Intel's firmware
`
` is an action by Intel. Someone who writes
`
`computer viruses to steal money commits theft.
`
`
`
`—a distinction without a difference.
`
`Intel "makes" the infringing ME/CSME subsystems. RSOF ¶¶ 7-12.
`
`Even were
`
` a third-party act, Intel is vicariously liable and still
`
`a direct infringer. For "infringement under § 271(a)," the "activities of one entity
`
`are attributable to another" if it "directs or controls" those actions. Akamai Techs. v.
`
`Limelight Networks, 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). "Control or
`
`direction" includes when one (1) "conditions participation in an activity or receipt of
`
`a benefit upon performance," and (2) "establishes the manner or timing of that
`
`performance." Id. at 1023. Both prongs are satisfied. RSOF ¶¶ 10-14.
`
`First, Intel conditions a host's use upon
`
`
`
`. RSOF ¶¶ 10-11.
`
`11066042
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 35937
`
`
`
`The
`
`Second, Intel establishes the manner of "making" ME/CSME subsystems.
`
` RSOF ¶¶ 12-13.
`
`
`
` RSOF ¶¶ 13-14.
`
`Not disputing this, Intel contends a "vicarious liability theory of direct
`
`infringement only is permitted for method claims, and not for apparatus claims."
`
`D.I. 822 at 1. Not so. The "control or direction" standard governs "when the activities
`
`of one entity are attributable to another" under "the text of § 271(a)," applicable to all
`
`patent claims. Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1023 & n.2.
`
`The Federal Circuit has applied "vicarious liability" to assess whether a
`
`defendant was "directing and controlling" customer actions and thus a direct infringer
`
`who "makes" a claimed "system." Centillion Data Sys. v. Qwest Commcn's Int'l, 631
`
`F.3d 1279, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Qwest argued vicarious liability "should not
`
`extend … to system or apparatus claims." Id. at 1283. The Federal Circuit disagreed,
`
`explaining: "Our precedents on vicarious liability … analyze the circumstances in
`
`which the actions of one party ought to be attributed to a second party." Id. at 1286.
`
`The question was "whether Qwest 'makes' the claimed invention .... by directing and
`
`controlling its customers' action." Id. at 1287. The court found "control or direction"
`
`not met on the facts, but clearly applied the framework to "system" claims. Id. Unlike
`
`Intel's urging, the court did not hold that "as a matter of law [] such a theory only
`
`11066042
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 35938
`
`
`
`applies to method claims." D.I. 822 at 5; see Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard,
`
`324 F. Supp. 3d 470, 482 (D. Del. 2018) (applying Centillion to "system claims").
`
`IV.
`
`INTEL'S MOTION REGARDING DAMAGES SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`Intel asserts, in one sentence, that VLSI has "not articulated a damages claim
`
`tethered to [] testing/use activities." D.I. 822 at 5. Not so. VLSI calculated damages
`
`based on Intel charging customers for the feature's benefit. Intel's testing is necessary
`
`for that benefit. RSOF ¶¶ 15-16; see Carnegie Mellon, 807 F.3d at 1310.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`VLSI respectfully requests the Court deny Intel's motion.
`
`
`Dated: February 15, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone : (302) 777-0300
`Fax : (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Morgan Chu (admitted pro hac vice)
`Benjamin Hattenbach (admitted pro hac vice)
`Iian D. Jablon (admitted pro hac vice)
`Christopher Abernethy (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ian Washburn (admitted pro hac vice)
`Amy E. Proctor (admitted pro hac vice)
`Dominik Slusarczyk (admitted pro hac vice)
`S. Adina Stohl (admitted pro hac vice)
`Charlotte J. Wen (admitted pro hac vice)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`
`11066042
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 35939
`
`
`
`mchu@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`ijablon@irell.com
`cabernethy@irell.com
`iwashburn@irell.com
`aproctor@irell.com
`dslusarczyk@irell.com
`astohl@irell.com
`cwen@irell.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC
`
`11066042
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 923 Filed 03/09/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 35940
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`The foregoing document complies with the type-volume limitation of this
`
`Court's March 2, 2020 form Scheduling Order For All Case Where Infringement is
`
`Alleged. The text of this brief, including footnotes, was prepared in Times New
`
`Roman, 14 point font. According to the word processing system used to prepare it,
`
`the brief contains 795 words, excluding case caption, signature blocks, table of
`
`contents, and table of authorities.
`
`Dated: February 15, 2022
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`
`11066042
`
`- 6 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
