`
`Ranjini Acharya (SBN 290877)
`ranjini.acharya@klgates.com
`K&L Gates LLP
`620 Hansen Way
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Tel: (650) 798-6700
`Fax: (650) 798-6701
`
`Patrick J. McElhinny, pro hac vice
`patrick.mcelhinny@klgates.com
`Mark G. Knedeisen, pro hac vice
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`Christopher M. Verdini, pro hac vice
`christopher.verdini@klgates.com
`Anna Shabalov, pro hac vice
`anna.shabalov@klgates.com
`K&L Gates LLP
`K&L Gates Center
`210 Sixth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`(412) 355-6500
`
`Theodore J. Angelis, pro hac vice
`theo.angelis@klgates.com
`K&L Gates LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 623-7580
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Regents of the University of Minnesota
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
`MINNESOTA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LSI CORPORATION and AVAGO
`TECHNOLOGIES U.S. INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00821-EJD-NMC
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Date: May 31, 2018
`Time: 9:00 am
`Place: Courtroom 4 – 5th Floor
`Hon. Edward J. Davila
`
`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
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1036
`Page 1
`
`
`
`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 5:18-cv-00821-EJD Document 201 Filed 04/09/18 Page 22 of 30
`
`Second, Defendants misconstrue the University’s allegations regarding infringing simulators.
`
`At the outset, it should be noted that the Amended Complaint does not even use the word
`
`“simulations,” which word is the basis for Defendants’ argument. Instead, the Amended Complaint
`refers to infringing “simulators,” which are for “reading MTR-encoded recorded waveforms.” Dkt.
`
`40 at ¶ 75; see id. at ¶¶ 20; 95-98; 118-119; 122. In other words, the “waveforms” used by the
`simulators are actual “waveforms,” e.g., the readback signal waveforms from an actual disk (or
`
`other magnetic recording medium) that has MTR-encoded data recorded to it. Defendants’
`
`arguments are factually incorrect, are inconsistent with the University’s allegations, and should be
`
`disregarded.
`
`Finally, even if it were not factually disputed, Defendants’ extensive reliance on their “pen
`
`and paper” assertion not only ignores that the claimed invention requires imposing physical
`
`constraints on a waveform (i.e., is not directed to writing down 0s and 1s on a piece of paper), but
`
`also exemplifies an analytical approach that has been soundly rejected in a similar context by a sister
`
`court: the “[p]encil-and-paper analysis can mislead courts into ignoring a key fact: although a
`
`computer performs the same math as a human, a human cannot always achieve the same results as a
`
`computer.” Hughes, 59 F.Supp.3d at 976. Indeed, in Hughes, the court rejected the defendant’s
`
`pen-and-paper analysis on the basis that it “oversimplifies § 101 and ignores the fact that the
`[asserted] patent creates an algorithmic solution for a computing problem—the corruption of data
`
`during transmission.” Id. (emphasis added). See also Paone v. Broadcom Corp., No. 15 CIV. 0596
`
`BMC GRB, 2015 WL 4988279, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2015) (citing Hughes with approval and
`
`rejecting pen-and-paper analogy).
`
`The same is true here: Defendants have devoted a significant portion of their motion,
`
`comprising several tables, color highlighting, and several pages of text, to try to describe the core of
`
`the disclosed invention. Dkt. 190 at 4-8. Yet, in all of those pages, Defendants fail to explain how
`writing down 0s and 1s on a piece of paper equates to the waveform with limits on transitions and
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
`ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`17
`
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-00821-EJD-NMC
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1036
`Page 2
`
`
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
