Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1of22 Page ID #:44069
`
`COOLEY LLP
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
`(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
`Telephone: (415) 693-2000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 693-2222
`
`COOLEY LLP
`HEIDI L. KEEFE(178960)
`(hkeefe@cooley.com)
`MARK R. WEINSTEIN (193043)
`(mweinstein@cooley.com)
`MATTHEWJ. BRIGHAM (191428)
`(mbrigham@cooley.com)
`3175 HanoverStreet
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone:
`(650) 843-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-7400
`
`Attorneysfor Defendants
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC.,
`and INSTAGRAM, LLC
`
`UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRYLIMITED,
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`FACEBOOK,INC.,
`WHATSAPPINC., and
`INSTAGRAMLLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO
`STRIKE
`
`The Hon. George H. Wu
`
`Hearing Date: February 20, 2020
`Time: 8:30 a.m.
`
`Ctrm: 9D
`
`OoOoTDDWAHFPWYHNeS
`
`NmWNWwBHBHBRBHDRDBRDOOOaotnDNONSFWwWHYKYCOODOWOAHNDAHFPWwNYKSOS
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`001
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`001
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2of22 Page ID #:44070
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`l 2
`
`I.
`
`IH.
`I.
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`U.S. PATENT NO.7,372,961 ooo..ccccccccccccccccccccceeeeceeeceeeeseceseeeseseeesseestteeeesseeeees I
`A.
`The ’961 Patent is Not Infringed Under the Theory BlackBerry
`Not
`Has Asserted Throughout This Case, and BlackBerry Should
`Be Allowed to ChangeIts Theory Now. ..............000.ccccccceeseeeeeeeeeeeseeeees l
`The Sole Asserted ’961 Patent, Claim 2, 1s Invalid Under§ 101.......... 3
`B.
`US. PATENT NO. 9,349,120 0000. ceccccceeeceeesccecesensessteeettsteteeesteeees D
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,209,634 000000 ccccc cccccccecceceeeeennseceseeseeccesseessseceeestneeese
`7
`A.
`Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Should Be Granted............. 9
`8
`
`9 B.—The Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.0000... 11
`IV.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,429,236 0000. ccccccccccccceeecccceceeenseceeetesseseeeettstseseeessees 12
`Vv)
`10}
`U.S. PATENT NO.8,301,713 -cccccccccccsessevsssessssvsssvesvsseseesessssssssssssssssssssssseeee 14
`
`Il|}VI. U.S. PATENT NO.8,677,250 00000... occcccc cc ccccccccccceesseccceeeeeseeeeeestsettesteestseeeeeeee 15
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`1
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`002
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`002
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3o0f22 Page ID #:44071
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`] 2
`
`3 4|
`
`|Cases
`
`5||Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`6
`573 U.S. 208 (2014)... cece cecescene ceeesececesseeeessceecesseeeesteeeeeensaeeensess 4,5,12,15
`
`7||Ancora Techs. v. HTCAm..,
`¢
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir, 2018) .occccccccccccsscssesssesesssessessiesecssessesseessessessessvessesseees 5,13
`g||Aptalis Pharmatech,Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`718 F. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 00. ..cccccccccccccccccscceessceccesscecesseeeesseeeeesseseesseeeeees 11
`
`10
`
`I
`12
`
`13
`14!
`15
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir, 2015) ccccccccssccccccscssssssevsvevsvevsvevsesessssssesssesesecessssssssseseseee 13
`
`Bascom GlobalInternet Servs., Inc. v. AT&TMobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir, 2016) ..c.ccccccccccccccecssescseccecscscescesesvscsvseevevsevevsveseevevsceeeee 14
`BSG Tech v. Buyseasons,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) oo..ocecccecceecceececceccceecceeeecceesecessceesseeeseeesseesseeeenseees 4
`
`16||ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`17
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ooocccccceccccceccccceeeeceeeescceesecccesececesscececsuseesenseeeenseeeee 12
`
`18||Core Wireless Licensing SARLv. LG Elecs.,
`19
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .o....ooc cecece cc cceceeeeeeeeeseeeceeeceeeceseetesssseeeeeeees 16
`90||Data Engine Techs. LLCv. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .o....cccccccccccccceeecsceeessceeesscecesseecesseeceestseseesseeennsaeees 16
`
`21
`
`2 Datamize, LLC vy. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) occ ceeeeeee ee 8
`
`23
`
`24||Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A.,
`25
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ooo...ccccceeececeecccceeccceeesccceeesceeessceeeeeseeeenseceeeeees 4,11
`
`26||Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`7
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) o000...0.cece eecccccceeeccceensccceesscecesseeeesseceeeenseeeenseeeeees 13
`
`28
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`il
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`003
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`003
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 4of22 Page ID #:44072
`
`OoOoTDDWAHFPWYHNeS
`
`NmWNWwBHBHBRBHDRDBRDOOOaotnDNONSFWwWHYKYCOODOWOAHNDAHFPWwNYKSOS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,
`S40 F.3d 1337 ooocccccccccceccccesccesscecesceesceessceessecessceesseeessesssecessccesssesseeseseeessseseeenseeees 7
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed Cir. 2015) oo... ccceeccececccceeccceecceeeeeeessceessceeseeeesseesseesseeeses 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir, 2017) oo..cccccccccccccceeccccceeceecceeeecceeeecessceeseceeseeeseesseeeenseees 4
`
`Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) oo...cccccccccccccececccescceesceessceeesseeesceesseeeeseesseeesseeees 8,9
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........cecccccccccccccescccescceescecescceesscesseeeseeeeesseessseesseeees 14
`
`MAZ Encryption Techs. v. Blackberry,
`No. 13-304-LPS, 2016 WL 5661981 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016). 0.0.00. 5
`
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Servs.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir, 2016) oo... ccccceceececcescceesceessceeesceesssessseeesceesseesesees 5,13
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014)... ccccccecccescceesccesceesscesesceesseeesssesssccessecesseesseeceseeeesssesseeeseeees 8
`
`PersonalWeb Tech. v. Google,
`No. 13-cv-1317, 2020 WL 470189 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020) 0000... 4
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir, 2013) coccccccccccccsecssecsecsesseessecsecsssssessesseessessessessesssessvee 10, 11
`
`Sitrick v. Dreamworks,
`516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 22.2... ...cccccccccccececcescceeesceessccescceesseesscecesseeesseeseeesseeees 5
`
`SRI Int'l v. Cisco Sys.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) o.oo... cccccceccccccccesccescccessseeesecesseeessecesseesseeessseeeess 5,13
`
`In re TLI Comme’ns LLC PatentLitig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) c.ccccccssssssssssssssessssvssessesucessucavssveseaveseareaveseens 12, 14, 15
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......cccccccccccccecescccesceescceescceesseesseeesseceesseessseeseeees 15
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`iil
`
`004
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`004
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5of22 Page ID #:44073
`
`—_—
`
`OoOoHDDWtwF&FWLH
`
`NmWNWwBHBHBRBHDRDBRDOOOaotnDNONSFWwWHYKYCOODOWOAHNDAHFPWwNYKSOS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Two-Way Media v. Comcast Cable Commce’ns,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....cceccecceeceescesseesceseeereeseeeseeseeseeseneeeerenseeesentenaees 4,5
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) oo...ccccccccceccccccccesccesssceeessceseeceseecesseenseeeesseesees 14
`
`Statutes
`
`B35 U.S.C. § LOD cece ccccccceecececceesaeeeeeeeeeenseecesaeeeeecnaeeeseaeesneeeeseeeeseesneeenes 3,5, 11, 15
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`005
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`005
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 6of22 Page ID #:44074
`
`OoOoTDDWAHFPWYHNeS
`
`NmWNWwBHBHBRBHDRDBRDOOOaotnDNONSFWwWHYKYCOODOWOAHNDAHFPWwNYKSOS
`
`Defendants submit the following reply in support of their motion for summary
`
`judgment and motionto strike:
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`A.
`
`The ’961 Patent is Not Infringed Under the Theory BlackBerry Has
`Asserted Throughout This
`Case, and BlackBerry Should Not Be
`Allowed to Change Its Theory Now
`
`BlackBerry does not dispute that under the only theory it advanced throughout
`
`this case—that the accused value for “output H(SV)”in claim 1[b] is the value stored
`
`in the global variable md—Facebook does not infringe the ’961 patent. The Court
`
`should grant summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to this theory.!
`
`Whether BlackBerry should be allowed to change its theory should be decided
`
`separately from the issue of summary judgment. For the reasons explained below,it
`
`should not be permitted to do so.
`
`BlackBerry’s opposition argues that Facebook and its expert were “mistaken”
`
`in interpreting BlackBerry’s infringement theory as alleging that the value placed in
`
`“global storage md” was the accused H(SV) in step I[b].
`
`(Opp. at 2.) But this is
`
`precisely what BlackBerry said, both in its infringement contentions and in the report
`
`of its expert, Dr. Rubin. For example, BlackBerry’s infringement contentionsstated:
`
`
`
`(Opp., Ex. E at 21 (emphasis added); see also ECF 552 at 2 (excerpt from preliminary
`
`infringement contentions served in September 2018 including the sameallegation).)
`
`And BlackBerry’s expert report said substantially the same thing:
`
`' As explained in Defendants’ opposition to BlackBerry’smotion to exclude Dr. Katz,
`Defendants properly disclosed this non-infringement position. (See ECF 600.)
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`]
`
`006
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`006
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:44075
`
`included a block of source code that included line 533 below, which
`
`(Opp., Ex. A, §181 (highlighting added).) BlackBerry’s identification of “global
`claims. Following and in support of
`storage md” was not a mere typo as BlackBerry
`Zz
`
`
` ECF 552-14, Katz Decl., Ex. B at 70-71, 9155 (citing Rubin Report and identifying | see also, e.g., Opp., Ex. E at 23 (showing citation to code in the
`
`infringement contentions).) Dr. Rubin’s source codecitations were entirely consistent
`
`with BlackBerry’s repeated and unequivocal allegation that the accused H(SV) in
`
`claim 1[b]is the value placed in the global variable md.
`
`The crux of BlackBerry’s argument is that Facebook should have discovered
`
`BlackBerry’s mistake, based on the “context” and “entirety” of its infringement
`
`theory, and disregarded BlackBerry’s expressallegations. But the statements quoted
`
`above identifying “global storage md”as the claimed “output H(SV)” are the only
`
`statements in BlackBerry’s contentions or expert report that actually tie the accused
`
`source codeto the “‘output H(SV)”limitation in claim 1[b]. BlackBerry andits expert
`
`never cited or referred to “buf” as the claimed output H(SV).
`
`(Opp., Ex. E at 24
`
`(including source codethat includes a formula for the variable “buf” but no allegation
`
`that “buf” is the value H(SV)): id. at 13, 24-31 (includingallegations for other claim
`
`limitations and noallegationsthat these are related to H(SV)in limitation 1[{b]): Opp.,
`
`Ex. A, {§ 184-85 (copying the infringementcontentions at 24 to describe some code
`
`that includes buf, but never tying that code to the value H(SV)).) Nothing in
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLYISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No, 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`2
`
`007
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`007
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:44076
`
`—_—
`
`BlackBerry’s contentions or expert report called into question the explicit allegation
`
`2||that global md is the accused H(SV). As for Facebook’s reasonable reliance on that
`
`3||allegation in its response, Dr. Rubin acknowledged:
`
`
`
`4 5 6 7 g|
`
`|(ECF 552-2, 325:18-326:5.)
`
`9
`
`BlackBerry’s attemptto shift the blame to Facebook should be rejected.
`
`It was
`
`10||BlackBerry’s responsibility as the patentee to understand what it accused and to
`
`1]||diligently investigate non-infringement positions clearly provided in discovery. As
`
`12||explained in Facebook’s opening brief and in its opposition to BlackBerry’s motion
`
`13||to strike relating to Dr. Katz, Facebook explicitly informed BlackBerry in its
`
`14||interrogatory responses—monthsbefore service of its opening expert report—that the
`
`15||code it identified for the “determining” step “operates on a value different from the
`
`16||accused H(SV).” (ECF 552-5 at 2.)
`
`17
`
`The prejudice from this late change in theory 1s clear. Facebook andits expert
`
`18||relied on and respondedto the specific allegations made by BlackBerry—which even
`19||Dr. Rubin—«329 552-2, 325:18-326:5.) Dr. Rubin
`
`29||made his changesafter service of Dr. Katz’s report and after his deposition, giving Dr.
`
`21||Katz no opportunity to respond. If the Court were to permit BlackBerry to changeits
`
`22||infringement theory after the service of all expert reports, Facebook’s expert would
`
`
`
`23||need an opportunity to provide a supplemental report to respond to them.
`
`
`
`24||BlackBerry’s change simply cametoo late and would be too prejudicial.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`B.
`
`The Sole Asserted ’961 Patent, Claim 2, is Invalid Under § 101
`
`BlackBerry argues “the claims of the °961 Patent are directed to a specific
`
`27||solution for generating secure cryptographic keys that overcomesthe Bleichenbacher
`
`2g||vulnerability.” (Opp. at 9.) But the sole asserted method claim uses only “result-
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`3
`
`008
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`008
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 9of22 Page ID #:44077
`
`—_—
`
`based functional language” to require the generic results of “determining” whether a
`
`2||generated random valueis less than a given desired range, “accepting”that valueifit
`
`3||1s less than the given range, and “providing” it to some other process to use, and
`
`
`
`4||“rejecting” the value and starting overif it is not less than the given range. (Mot.at
`
`5||8-9.2) Such a basic concept, embodied in a method claim reciting only abstract,
`
`6||functional results, is not patent-eligible subject matter. F.g., Elec. Power Grp. v.
`
`7||Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“lengthy” claimsreciting
`
`8||“functions” but no actual improvement in computer technology); 7wo-Way Media v.
`
`9|}Comcast Cable Commce’ns, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim required
`
`10||functional results, but did not “sufficiently describe how to achieve [the] results in a
`
`11||non-abstract way’). Under Alice step 1, when the claimsare properly “[s]tripped of
`
`12||excess verbiage,” the claims are “directed to” nothing more than the abstract idea of
`
`13||generating a random value within a desired range, no different in substance than
`
`
`
`14||generating random values in games of chance, such as roulette or craps. /ntellectual
`
`15||Ventures I vy. Capital One Fin., 850 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017); PersonalWeb
`
`16||Tech. v. Google, No. 13-cv-1317, 2020 WL 470189,at *1-5, *13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29,
`
`17||2020) (invalidating claims applying a cryptographic hash function).
`
`18
`
`At Alice step 2, BlackBerry mistakenly argues that Defendants “waived” any
`
`
`
`19||argument that the ordered combination was unconventional. (Opp. at 10.) But
`
`20||Defendants’ opening brief plainly argued the “claim limitations here, whether
`
`
`
`21||individually or as an ordered combination, merely restate the abstract idea of
`
`22||repeatedly generating random numbers until an acceptable value is obtained.” (Mot.
`
`23||at 10 (emphasis added).) “Ifa claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of
`
`24||an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not
`
`25||been transformed”into patent-eligible subject matter. BSG Tech v. Buyseasons, 899
`
`26|}F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Mot. at 9-10; ECF 552-14, Katz Decl., Ex. A,
`
`27
`
`28||2 Claim 2 generates anothervaluelike the abstract “rejecting” step of claim 1.
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`4
`
`009
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`009
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:44078
`
`—_—
`
`{J 61-77, 81-86, 305-312. The concepts 1n the asserted claim are so basic, they do not
`
`
`
`2||distinguish the claim from the abstract idea itself. (Mot. at 8.) BlackBerry itself is
`
`3||unable to articulate any “inventive concept”in claim 2.
`
`4
`
`Nor does BlackBerry identify any actual “factual dispute” over Alice step 2.
`
`5||(See Opp. at 10.) BlackBerry simply invokes “Ex. B {J 238-240, 243,” but conclusory
`
`6||expert testimony is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. F.g., Sitrick v.
`
`7||Dreamworks, 516 F.3d 993, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mortg. Grader v. First Choice
`
`8||Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming grant of summary
`
`9|judgment of § 101 invalidity despite expert declaration). Nothing recited in claim 2
`
`10||“transform[s] the abstract idea into something more”that is patent eligible. 7wo-Way
`
`11||Media, 874 F.3d at 13393
`
`
`
`12|II. U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120
`
`13
`
`BlackBerry has struggled throughoutthis litigation to explain whythe visual
`
`14|}cues provided byall accused products (blue dot, bolded text, etc.), and the additional
`
`15||physical cue provided by Instagram (vibration), do not qualify as “notifications” under
`
`16||the ’120 patent. Every single time BlackBerry has spoken aboutthis issue, it has
`
`17||abandonedearlier theories and offered new explanations, and its opposition here is no
`
`18||exception. But BlackBerry’s shifting arguments cannot change the undisputed
`
`19||operation of the accused products andthe lack of any issue of material fact.
`
`20
`
`BlackBerry argues that the fact that its earlier motion for summary judgment
`
`
`
`21||failed means that Defendants’ motion should suffer the same fate. (Opp. at 10-11.)
`
`22||But BlackBerry bears the burden of establishing infringement and the record has
`
`23||changed considerably since BlackBerry’s motion. For example, in arguing that the
`
`24||visual cues provided by Defendants’ products were not“notifications,” BlackBerry’s
`
`
`3BlackBerry’scited cases are unavailing. EgSRIInt’l v. Cisco Sys., 930 F.3d 1295,
`
`°°
`26|enGECdanORBenda3eeereoCecometcord
`27||Techs. v. Blackberr , No. 13-304-LPS, 2016 WL 5661981, at ID. Del. Sept. 29,
`2016) (specific imp ementation requiring “two-table limitations”).
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`5
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`010
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`010
`
`

`

`Case
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 11of22 Page ID #:44079
`
`OoOoTDDWAHFPWYHNeS
`
`NmWNWwBHBHBRBHDRDBRDOOOaotnDNONSFWwWHYKYCOODOWOAHNDAHFPWwNYKSOS
`
`earlier motion spent several pages attempting to analogize those cues to the numeric
`
`counter mentioned in the Court’s claim construction order and pointing to excerpts of
`
`the prosecution history.
`
`(ECF 317 at 17-21.)* The Court rejected both arguments.
`
`(ECF 468 at 50 (“BlackBerry’s reliance on portions ofthe intrinsic record in crafting
`
`its arguments appears somewhat irrelevant, given that the bolding and blue dot in
`
`Facebook Defendants’ example from the accused instrumentalities is different than
`
`simply adding a numeric counter.”).) BlackBerry’s opposition here largely abandons
`
`those points and relies on new arguments. And those arguments either lack any
`
`evidentiary support in the record or rely on incorrect legal arguments.
`
`Visual Notifications: With respect to the visual cues, BlackBerry argues that
`
`they “were not intended to draw attention af the time the messageis received.” (Opp.
`
`at 11 (italics in original).) But BlackBerry does not even arguethat there is any delay
`
`betweenthe receipt of a new message and the presentation of these visual cues. The
`
`parties are in full agreement that these visual cues appear simultaneously with receipt
`
`of the incoming message.
`
`(ECF 552-12, §6; ECF 552-11, 95; ECF 552-10, §6; ECF
`
`540-18 Ex. 14, 161:23-162:2 (“Q. So at the time that the message comes in [] the
`
`messagechatis displayed with both the blue dot and with the blue coloring ofthe time
`
`value. Correct? A. That’s correct.’’).)
`
`BlackBerry also makes much ofthe fact that Defendants’ internal documents
`>>
`do not specifically refer to these visual cues as “notifications.” The way the visual
`
`cues work is undisputed, and the Court has provided an express construction of
`
`“notifications.” Whether those undisputed visual cues are described internally as
`
`“notifications”is irrelevant to whether they meet the Court’s express definition.
`
`BlackBerry next makes a new claim construction argument—that the visual
`
`cues provided by the accused products cannot be “notifications” because the claim
`
`4 BlackBerry inaccurately states that it brought its motion for summary judgment
`“after the close of fact discovery” (Opp. at 1).
`BlackBerry filed its motion on July 18,
`2019 (ECF 247), approximately six weeksbefore the close of fact discovery.
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`6
`
`011
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`011
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:44080
`
`—_—
`
`separately recites the ability to display a silenced message thread “in a different
`
`
`
`2||manner” from a non-silenced thread. (Opp. at 12-13.) But nothing in the Court’s
`
`3||claim constructionorthe patent specification suggests that a visual notification cannot
`
`4||be manifested as a change in the way a message thread appears in the inbox. The
`
`5||“displayed... in a different manner”limitation provides a wayto visually distinguish
`
`6||silenced from non-silenced threads. The visual cues provided by the accused
`
`7||products, on the other hand, appearidentically for both muted and non-mutedthreads.°
`
`8
`
`BlackBerryalso argues that Dr. Rosenberg provided “credible testimony that a
`
`9||POSITA would not consider minor visual differences such as bolded text and blue
`
`10||dots to be notificationsin light of the examples in the patent.” (Opp. at 13.) But these
`
`11||are just legal arguments about the meaning of “notifications,” dressed up as expert
`
`12||testimony. BlackBerry’s argument appears to be that the phrase in the Court’s
`
`13|}construction, “that would not otherwise have been noticed,” requires a cue that is more
`
`14||shocking, jarring or otherwise more intrusive than what the accused products’ visual
`
`15||cues provide. But the Court’s construction does not impose any such requirement.
`
`16||The visual cues (e.g., blue dot, bolded text, etc.) clearly draw the user’s attention to
`
`17||message conversations with new messages, and BlackBerry does not dispute that
`
`18||without them, a user could not visually distinguish a conversation that has new
`
`19||messages from onethat does not. (ECF 552-7, 181:16-182:9.)
`
`Instagram Vibration Notifications: Even if the Court were to find factual
`
`21||issues with respect to the visual cues, it must grant partial summary judgment with
`
`20
`
`22||respect to Instagram. BlackBerry’s opposition doubles downon the sole argumentit
`
`23||has, that the haptic vibration is not a “notification” because it occurs while the
`
`24
`
`25||> BlackBerry also argues the inventortestified that the patent was intended to prevent
`what he called “verbose”notifications.
`(Opp. at 13.)
`But the Court has provided an
`26||express definition of “notifications” that Mr Kalu admitted that he had neverseen.
`(Keefe Decl. Ex. 35, 164:24-165:24.) Mr. Kalu’s testimonyis thusirrelevant to the
`27 meaning of “notifications.” See Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech.,
`F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Ulnventor tesey as to the inventor’s
`
`28 subjective intent is irrelevant to the issueofclaim construction.”).
`
`oO
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`7
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`012
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`012
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:44081
`
`—_—
`
`2
`
`Instagram inboxis displayed on the screen.
`
`BlackBerry’s argument should be rejected because, aside from having no
`
`3||support in the claim language as explained in Defendants’ openingbrief, it turns the
`
`4||definition of “notification” into a subjective inquiry into whetheror not a user would
`
`5||be distracted by the particular visual or physical cue in question. For example,
`
`6||BlackBerry argues that the purpose ofthe patentis to “prevent unwantednotifications
`
`7||that would distract a user in situations wherethe user is not focused on the messaging
`
`8||application,” and thus, “[a] haptic bump that 1s provided only when the application 1s
`
`9||opened and navigated to the inbox would not provide such a distraction from other
`
`10||tasks.” (Opp. at 13-14 (emphasis added).) In other words, a user who happensto be
`
`11||staring at her Instagram inbox is already focused on her messaging application, and
`
`12||thus, anew messagevibration does not provide a “distraction” from that task.
`
`13
`
`Putting aside that the conceptof “distraction” is found nowherein the Court’s
`
`14||construction or the patent specification (which does not contain even one instance of
`
`
`
`15||the word “distraction” or any variant of it), BlackBerry’s argument is entirely
`
`16||subjective—it would cause the definition of “notification” to turn on what a human
`
`
`
`17||operator happens to be doing at the momentthe vibration occurs. If the inbox is
`
`18||displayed but the user happens to be doing something else (or for some other reason
`
`19||is not looking directly at her phone), then a new messagevibration could certainly
`
`20||provide “a distraction from other tasks.” (/d.)
`
`21
`
`The Court should also reyect BlackBerry’s argument because it would render
`
`22||the claims indefinite under § 112. The Federal Circuit has made clear that claims are
`
`23||indefinite when their scope turns on the subjective experience of a human operator.
`
`24||See, e.g., Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
`
`25||Datamize, LLCv. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
`
`26||abrogated on other grounds Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898
`
`27||(2014). For example, the Federal Circuit in Jnferval Licensing held that the claim
`
`28||phrase, “unobtrusive manner that does not distract a_ user,” was indefinite in a
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`8
`
`013
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`013
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:44082
`
`—_—
`
`claim directed at presenting information to a user through a computer display. The
`
`2||Federal Circuit found the phrase “highly subjective” and cited with approval the
`
`3||district court’s observation that “whether something distracts a user from his primary
`
`4||interaction depends on the preferences of the particular user and the circumstances
`
`5||under which anysingle userinteracts with the display.” Jnferval Licensing, 766 F.3d
`
`6|}at 1371. The court found the phrase indefinite because it “offers no objective
`
`7||indication of the manner in which content images are to be displayed to the user.” Jd.
`
`8||BlackBerry’s arguments about requiring “distraction” of the user urge the Court to
`
`9||create § 112 infirmities in the ’120 patent, by rendering the applicability of the term
`
`10||“notification” dependent on how end users perceive the physical and visual cues
`
`11||provided by the accused products.
`
`12|III. U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`13
`14
`
`Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Should Be Granted
`A.
`BlackBerry’s opposition rests on the false premise that Defendants’ motion
`
`
`
`15||relies on limiting “messaging correspondents” to “users.” (Opp. at 17.) It does not.
`
`16||The motion instead relies on the fact that BlackBerry cannot show that the accused
`
`17||numeric character represents the numberof “distinct senders” as required by the claim.
`
`18
`
`BlackBerry’s exposition of the claim construction process conspicuously
`
`19||avoids the key point raised here—howts a conversationorchatitself a “distinct sender
`
`20||of an electronic message”? As Defendants’ openingbrief explained, messages within
`
`
`
`21||a conversation or chat are sent by the individual participating users. (Mot. at 22.)
`
`22||BlackBerry doesnot arguethat the chat or conversation i/se/fever sends messages.
`
`23
`
`BlackBerry argues that “newly received messages are sorted into separate line
`
`
`
`24||items in the recipient’s inbox,”1.e., based on chats or conversations. (Opp. at 18.)
`
`25||But BlackBerry does not explain how the on-screen display of a chat or conversation
`
`26||has anything to do with how the messages were sent—or by whom.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`9
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`014
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`014
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:44083
`
`—_— 2
`
`Finally, BlackBerry’s opposition attempts to obscure this issue by coining a
`
`3 4 5
`
`6||new phrase about sending a message “on behalfofa group conversation,” to somehow
`
`7||suggest that a group conversation may be regarded as a distinct sender. (Opp. at 18.)
`
`
`
`8||But BlackBerry does not dispute that the individual participants of a group
`
`9||conversation are the entities that actually send the messages. The fact that messages
`
`10||may be associated with a group conversation does not make the group conversation
`
`11||itself into the sender of those messages.
`
`12
`
`BlackBerry’s revisionism with respect to its statements to the PTAB should also
`
`13||be rejected. BlackBerry said more than enoughto confirm thatits infringement theory
`
`14||falls outside the scope of the claims. See Saffran v.Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d
`
`15|}549, 559 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A]pplicants rarely submit affirmative disclaimers along
`
`16||the lines of ‘I hereby disclaim the following...’ during prosecution and need not do so
`
`17||to meet the applicable standard.”). BlackBerry does not deny (a) that it expressly
`
`
`
`18||argued to the PTAB that the “IM sessions” in Canfield are not “messaging
`
`19||correspondents,” and (b) that it cannot identify any material difference between the
`
`20||IM sessionsin Canfield and the chats and conversations in the accused products.
`
`21
`
`BlackBerry instead tries to recast its arguments to the PTABas a responseto
`
`22||Defendants’ obviousness argument that there could be a one-to-one correspondence
`
`23||between the number of IM sessions in Canfield and the numberof distinct senders
`
`
`
`24||(i.e. for IM sessions that only had two members). (Opp. at 19-20.) But BlackBerry
`
`25||made arguments about that issue in addition to its argument on pages 34-35 ofits
`
`26||Patent Owner Responsethat the IM sessions in Canfield were simply not “messaging
`
`
`
`27||correspondents.” (ECF 540-24, at 36-40.) Federal Circuit law is clear that “an
`
`28||applicant’s argumentthat a priorart reference is distinguishable on a particular ground
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx
`
`10
`
`015
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`015
`
`

`

`Case
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02/07/20 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:44084
`
`OoOoTDDWAHFPWYHNeS
`
`NmWNWwBHBHBRBHDRDBRDOOOaotnDNONSFWwWHYKYCOODOWOAHNDAHFPWwNYKSOS
`
`can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the
`
`reference on other grounds as well.” Saffran, 712 F.3d at 559 (citation omitted).
`
`BlackBerry should beheldto its clear statements that the “IM sessions” in Canfield—
`
`which are indistinguishable from the accused conversations and chats—are not
`
`“messaging correspondents.”
`
`BlackBerry’s statements to the PTABare relevant irrespective of whether they
`
`rise to the level of disclaimer. See, e.g., Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 718
`
`F. App’x 965, 971 (Fed. Cir.