woonDBwnfFWYNY
`
`NYNONYNYWHYNWNNNWNNOwmmememeetonDBDOnfFWNYOKYCOOHOMONWDOnFkWYNYKSCO
`
`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 1of25 Page ID #:18701
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`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)
`MATTHEW J. BRIGHAM(191428)
`(mbrigham@cooley.com)
`3175 HanoverStreet
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone:
`(650) 843-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-7400
`
`Attorneysfor Defendants
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPPINC.,
`and INSTAGRAM, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRYLIMITED,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPPINC.,
`and INSTAGRAMLLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SNAPINC.,
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`FACEBOOK DEFENDANTS’
`
`OPPOSITION TO BLACKBERRY’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`
`JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
`(U.S. PATENT NOS.8,677,250,
`8,279,173, AND 9,349,120)
`
`Hearing Date: September 5, 2019
`Time: 8:30 A.M.
`Ctrm: 9D
`
`Defendant.
`
`Assigned to the Hon. George H. Wu
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844:
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`(250, °173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`001
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`001
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 2o0f25 Page ID #:18702
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`2
`INTRODUCTION 0o.eoocccocscsesssesssessvesssessvesssessvessiesseesssessstesseetsessesssesssesssese |
`BT.
`
`4||IL LEGAL STANDARD 0000.ooo coco coo coccc coco cc ccc cece eeeeeeteeeeeeeessseeeetererereverereees 2
`5
`TT. ARGUMENTooo.cccccccccccceeceeseseseececeeccescecessessnsceceececeeeeesestssseeees 2
`A.—BlackBerry Has Not ShownInfringementof the ’250 Patent ................2
`6 B.—BlackBerry Has Not ShownInfringement of the ?173 Patent ............. 10
`
`7
`C.
`BlackBerry Has Not ShownInfringementof the ’120 Patent ............. 15
`1.
`BlackBerry Has Not Shownthat the Accused Muting
`Features Satisfy All Limitations of the Asserted Claims.......... 15
`a.
`TheAccused Products Continue to Provide
`Notifications Even for “Muted” Conversations
`and Chats .2.........ccceccccccecceeessceceeesseeseeeeeesssseeeeecestseeeeeensees 15
`The Accused Facebook andWhatsApp Products
`Do NotStore a Flag Indicating That a Chat Is Muted.... 20
`11
`
`12|TV. CONCLUSION 000... cceccecccec cece eeecces cece ceseeeseeesecceceseceseeeseeneeceaeeeseeeseeeseeeeees 21
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`b.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`1
`
`002
`
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOFINFRINGEMENT
`(7250, 7173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`002
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 3o0f25 Page ID #:18703
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`2
`3||Cases
`
`4||DeMartini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc.,
`5
`239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001) oo..ccccecceeecccceceeccceeescceesececesececesscecesenseeeenseeesnseeeee2
`Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1472 (Fed.
`Cir, 1998) oo.ccccceeccccccceccccceeccceesececeescecessceceseseesenssecensesecees 2
`
`6
`
`7||L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc.,
`8
`471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 2200.0...ceccccecccccceeccceesececessceeensceeeeeseeeenseeeenenseee2
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC,
`571 U.S. 191 (2014)... ceeecc cece iececceeeecceeneeceeseescceeeccceessccceesscecesscecesteeceenseeeenseesees 2
`
`9
`
`10||Nazomi Comme’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC,
`1
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) o....0..ccccccccccccccccccccccceececceeeseceeseceeeessceesssceeesee 15
`Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.,
`509 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2007) ooo... eccccceecccceeeesceeeescceessceeeeescecesseceeeeseeeenseseeensseeees 2
`
`12
`
`13||7ypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`4
`
`374 F.3d
`
`1151 (Fed. Cir 2004) oooccecccceeneeceeeeseceeesecceeesseeeeseeeeestseeesnseeeeees6, 10
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`.o....ceccccccceecccccccceeecececeeenececeeeeesseeeees 2,5, 13,21
`
`15
`
`16||Statutes
`
`18||Other Authorities
`
`19||Fed. R. Civ.P.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`.
`.
`CaseNos. 2Sv 844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`1
`
`003
`
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`(250, °173, 120 PATENTS)
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`003
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 4of25 Page ID #:18704
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1}
`
`2
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its rush to have something heard at the same time as the pending motions for
`
`3||summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101, BlackBerry filed an error laden and
`
`4||deficient motion for partial summary judgment seeking to establish that several
`
`5||accused products infringe claims across multiple patents. Tellingly, the “Statement
`
`6||of Uncontroverted Facts” accompanying the motion relies almost entirely on bald
`
`7||statements that BlackBerry’s experts analyzed the systems and provided opinions:.!
`
`g||When thoseopinionsare closely analyzed, they demonstrate BlackBerry’s inability to
`
`9||show that any accused productinfringes any asserted claim.
`
`10
`
`The ’250 patent requires enabling a “gameapplication”to utilize a “contactlist”
`
`11||for an instant messaging application, but BlackBerry and its expert point only to a
`
`12||“Chats list” that does not contain a list of the user’s contacts and cannot be accessed
`
`13||by any supposed game application. The deposition of BlackBerry’s expert also
`
`14||uncovered a profoundlack of knowledge, as he repeatedly changed positions multiple
`
`15||times in an attempt to salvage BlackBerry’s theory, raising credibility issues that
`
`16||provide a separate basis for rejecting BlackBerry’s motion. With respect to the
`
`17||°173 patent, which requires the display of a “tag type indicator” for every tag in a tag
`
`18||list, BlackBerry’s expert admitted that he was relying on a blank area of the screen —
`
`19||on which nothingis displayed — as the supposedly displayed indicator. For the
`
`20||°120 patent, which requires the ability to silence all new messagenotifications within
`
`21||a thread, BlackBerry’s expert acknowledged that the accused products continue to
`
`22||show visual cues that inform the userofthe receipt of new messages, even for silenced
`
`23||threads. These and the other flaws with BlackBerry's analysis, as discussed below,
`
`24||actually show non-infringementofthe asserted patents. But at a minimum,theyraise
`
`25||genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.
`
`26
`
`im
`
`' E.g., SUF Nos. 29-36.
`
`.
`.
`CaseNos. 2Sv 844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`1
`
`004
`
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`(250, °173, 120 PATENTS)
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`004
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 5of25 Page ID #:18705
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`1||Hf. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`2
`
`BlackBerry’s motion only attempts
`
`to establish /iferal
`
`infringement,
`
`3||not infringement underthe doctrine of equivalents.” The standard for proving literal
`
`4||infringement is well-settled, and exacting. Literal infringement exists only “when
`
`5||every limitation recited in the claim appears in the accused device, 1.e. when ‘the
`
`6||properly construed claim reads on the accused device exactly.”” DeMartini Sports,
`
`
`
`7|Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
`
`8||The absence of even a single limitation precludes a finding ofliteral infringement.
`
`9||See, e.g. Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`10||Whether an accused product infringes a claim presents a question of fact. See Uniloc
`
`11||USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`12
`
`BlackBerry bears the burdenofproving infringement. See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc.
`
`
`
`13||v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191, 198-199 (2014). In the context of
`
`14||summary judgment, “[w]here the moving party will have the burden of proof on an
`
`15||issueattrial,” as here, “the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable
`
`16||trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless,
`
`17||Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007); see also, e.g., L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc.,
`
`18||471 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As established below, BlackBerry has not
`
`19||carried its burden with respect to any of the asserted claims or any of the accused
`
`20||products addressed in its motion.
`
`21||I. ARGUMENT
`
`22
`
`23
`
`A.
`
`BlackBerry Has Not Shown Infringementof the ’250 Patent
`
`It
`
`is somewhat puzzling that BlackBerry’s motion chose to lead with the
`
`
`
`24||°250 patent considering the profound deficiencies in BlackBerry’s theory.
`
`
`
`
`
`25||The problems with BlackBerry’s infringement theory run the gamut of summary
`
`26||}——_—_——_____—__
`27
`? BlackBerry’s two technical experts (on which BlackBerry’s motionentirely relies)
`only evaluated literal infringement for purposes of the present motion.
`(Schonfeld
`28||Dep., 22:21-23:4, Keefe Ex. 1; Rosenberg Dep., 132:2-9, Keefe Ex. 2.)
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844:
`2
`JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`(7250, 7173, 7120 PATENTS)
`
`005
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`005
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`woonDBwnfFWYNY
`
`NYNONYNYWHYNWNNNWNNOwmmememeetonDBDOnfFWNYOKYCOOHOMONWDOnFkWYNYKSCO
`
`2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 6of25 Page ID #:18706
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`judgmentdefects, from BlackBerry and its expert misunderstanding how the accused
`
`products operate, to serious credibility issues with BlackBerry’s expert that cannot be
`
`resolved on summary judgment. At a minimum, genuine issues of material fact
`
`remain as to whether Facebookinfringes any claim of the ’250 patent.
`
`The problem with BlackBerry’s infringement arguments begin at limitation
`
`[9.a], which recites “enabling a game application on the electronic device to utilize a
`
`contactlist for an instant messaging application for playing games with contacts in
`
`the contactlist by identifying gameplay in the contactlist.” BlackBerry’s arguments
`
`about
`
`this limitation provide a clear example of either misunderstanding or
`
`misrepresenting how the accused products work.
`
`In order to fully understand why
`
`BlackBerry’s motion mustfail, it is helpful to unpack and explain its theory.
`
`Under BlackBerry’s theory, the “game application” correspondsto an Instant
`
`Game that can be invoked from Facebook Messenger or the Facebook website.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., 29:4-13, 29:23-30:9; Mot. at 6-7.) The only specific game that
`
`BlackBerry andits expert identify or discuss is “Words with Friends,” created by non-
`
`party Zynga, Inc.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., 29:23-30:9; Chen Decl., §5.)°> Blackberry then
`
`alleges that
`
`the claimed “contact list for an instant messaging application,”
`
`corresponds to the “Chats” list shown on the Facebook website and through the
`
`Messenger app. (Schonfeld Dep., 33:21-34:1 (citing Schonfeld Decl., pp. 16 & 27);
`
`see also Mot. at 7:4-6.) With those understandings in mind, we now turn to the
`
`specific requirements in limitation [9.a].
`
`Asnoted, limitation [9.a] requires that the alleged “game application” (like
`
`Words with Friends) be enabled “to utilize a contact list for an instant messaging
`
`application.” BlackBerry simply assumes without explanation that the Chats list
`
`qualifies as a “contact list” for purposes of claim 9. But a reasonable jury could
`
`> For each witness from whom Facebook submits a declaration herewith, BlackBerry
`has already received document discovery and taken their depositions under Fed. R.
`Civ. Pro. 30(b)(1) and 30(b)(6).
`.
`.
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv01844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`Opr. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOFINFRINGEMENT
`(°250, 173, 7120 PATENTS)
`
`3
`
`006
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`006
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 7of25 Page ID #:18707
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`conclude that the Chats list 1s not a contact list. As explained in the accompanying
`
`declaration of Facebook engineer Kun Chen, who was deposed by BlackBerry prior
`to the filing of ts tion,
`
`which shows
`
`chats.
`
`Id.,
`
`Re
`
`(Chen Decl., $94, 9.)
`This difference is illustrated by the exemplary Chats list shown at the right,
`all Verizon >
`11:02 AM
`com
`poy
`(
`YP) ve Chats
`G
`five exemplary
`¥9.
`The first two chats correspond to group chats that
`ferder
`have user-selectedtitles (e.g., “Running group” and
`ao
`“Ice cream on Sundays!”), and do not identify any
`participating users or “contacts.” The remaining a eeee eee
`three chats include two one-on-one conversations ae Ice creamon Sundays!
`(one between the user and Emma Coleman and the
`_ a
`wa EmmaColeman
`other between the user and Derek Rodgers), and one =
`group conversation (including both Emma and ae ee
`Derek). Although the Chats list can include the 6a perek Rodgers
`names of individuals, as shown, the list is oriented ss
`
`-
`oP
`
`woonDBwnfFWYNY
`
`NYNONHNWHONONWNNYWNNOeH#-#§-HFHFEeOOEeOOSeonDBDOnfFWNYOKYCOOHOMONWDOnFkWYNYKSCO
`
`around conversations, not individual contacts.
`(/d.)
`Thus, the namesof other users may be missing from,
`or included multiple times in,
`the Chats list (as
`
`®
`
`o
`
`shown), and contacts who are notin those chats will not belisted at all. (/d.)
`
`BlackBerry’s infringement theory apparently assumes that any list that may
`
`show namesof individuals qualifies as a “contactlist,” regardless of how thelistis
`
`organized or presented, and regardless of its purpose. BlackBerry never asked for a
`
`construction of “contactlist,” the Court did not construeit, and the term is not defined
`
`.
`.
`Case Nos. 2: I8cv-Ol 844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`4
`
`007
`
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`(°250, 7173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`007
`
`

`

`Cas@ 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:18708
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`1||in the ’250 patent.t The term “contact list” therefore takes on its ordinary and
`
`2||everyday meaning, and at a minimum, a question of fact exists as to whether the
`
`3||“Chats”list qualifies under that ordinary meaning. See Uniloc, 632 F.3d at 1301-02
`
`4||(application of the claim to the accused device was a question of fact). A reasonable
`
`5||jury could conclude that a list of “Chats” is not the same as a list of contacts, and
`
`6||therefore does not qualify as a contactlist.
`
`7
`
`This is not the only flaw with BlackBerry’s infringement theory — diving down
`
`8||to a more technical level reveals profound deficiencies. As noted, limitation [9.a]
`
`9||expressly requires that the alleged “game application” be enabled “to utilize a contact
`
`10||/istfor an instant messaging application.” But as shownbelow,an Instant Game such
`11||as Words with Friends(the alleged “game application”)J
`|I Cie: De110)
`
`||
`
`5|
`
`||
`
`5: acicer
`18||and its expert were mistaken.ee
`—_ Oo
`
`20
`
`21
`
`+ The specification does not provide meaningful guidance on this issue. Figure 3
`22||shows an exemplary “Muike’s Contact List” that includes a section for conversations
`23||(304), but unlike the accused Chats list, the contact list in the specification also
`contains a specific section (308)
`that provides an actual
`listing of contacts.
`24|!(250, Figs. 3-4.)
`25||5 The term “API”stands for Application ProgrammingInterface (API), whichis an
`26||interface that allows software programsto gain accessto certain functionality. (Chen
`Decl., §6; Schonfeld Dep., 38:6-24.) Here, Facebook provides an API for its Instant
`27||Games platform that providesa series offunctions that allow game developersto adapt
`2g||their gamesto interact with the features of Facebook Messenger. (Chen Decl., 6.)
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844:
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`5
`
`(7250, °173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`008
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`008
`
`

`

`Cas
`
`—_ So
`
`— —WWBD
`
`woonDBwnfFWYNY
`NvNYWNNYNYNYNYNYNYHYYFKFYEOEonBNUNS&SWYNYKFCOODOADHnH
`
`2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 9of25 Page ID #:18709
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`In other words,
`
`It was clear from the deposition of BlackBerry’s expert that, when he wrote his
`declaration, he did not understand the limitations ofPo
`He had nevertested it, and could not confirm
`— on which he expressly
`
`relied — was accurate.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., at 35:25-36:6, 46:7-47:7.) When asked
`
`whether
`
`po A reasonable jury could decide, based on the lack of knowledge and
`equivocations of BlackBerry’s expert, to not credit him or BlackBerry’s theory of
`
`infringement
`
`that he attempted to support.
`
`See T7ypeRight Keyboard Corp. v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[S]ummary judgmentis
`
`not appropriate where the opposing party offers specific facts that call into question
`
`the credibility of the movant’s witnesses.”).
`
`The problems do not end there. Limitation [9.a] also recites “enabling a game
`
`application on the electronic device to utilize a contact list for an instant messaging
`
`application ... by identifying game play in the contact list.”. BlackBerry’s analysis
`
`of the latter portion of limitation [9.a] (“by identifying gameplay in the contactlist’’)
`does not mention ee. BlackBerry appears to treat
`“utiliz[ing] a contactlist for an instant messaging application,” and “identifying game
`Cos Nos 218-0184,
`6
`OnnoMSYPanriaSty
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KS
`ME!
`NFRINGEME)
`o-02695
`GW(RSs)
`(°250, °173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`009
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`009
`
`

`

`Case
`
`woonDBwnfFWYNY
`
`NmNONYNYWNWNWNWNNOHe&mmonDBDOnfFWNYOKYCOOHOMONWDOnFkWYNYKSCO
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 10o0f25 Page ID #:18710
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`play in the contactlist,” as two separate and independent requirements that can be
`
`shownbydisparate and unrelated functionalities. (Schonfeld Decl.,40-41, 53-54.)
`
`But the claim links the two by reciting the ability to “utilize a contact list
`
`...
`
`by identifying gameplay in the contact list.” BlackBerry has articulated no theory
`
`that accounts for these interrelated requirements.
`BlackBerry’s expert had no idea whetherPT
`
`a, had anyrole in the display of the Chatslist (the alleged “contactlist’’),
`let alone identifying gameplay in the alleged contact list.
`(Schonfeld Dep., 50:21-
`3)
`Pe An Instant Game, such as Words with
`iesI1.32:
`thus cannot show that Facebook “enabl[es] a game application ... to utilize a contact
`
`list ... by identifying gameplay in the contactlist.”
`
`There are even more problems. BlackBerry’s expert admitted that
`the
`PO would be invoked, if at all, by the Instant
`Game(the alleged “game application”). (Schonfeld Dep., 37:7-13, 48:18-49:4.) But
`
`BlackBerry’s expert admitted that he had no idea “if the Words with Friends game
`everee” Ud., 37:16-20.) Nor could he
`answer this question with respect to any other game available through Facebook
`
`Instant Games. (/d., 37:21-38:4.)° BlackBerry’s expert further admitted that he had
`
`never looked at the source code for Wordswith Friends (or any other Instant Game).
`
`(d., at 31:5-32:1.) He, in fact, claimed he did not need it. (/d., at 32:6-33:4.) In any
`
`case, BlackBerry has
`
`zero evidence of any game
`
`application that used
`
`6 An Instant Game does not need to usePo in orderto
`function.
`(Schonfeld Dep., 39:10-22; Chen Decl., §8.) The mere existence of an
`— Instant—_ therefore, does notprovide evidence that the gameeveruses
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`Case Nos. 2: 18-ev-01844;
`7
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`(°250, 7173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`010
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`010
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 11 of25 Page ID #:18711
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`] Be performed the function of
`2||“utiliz[ing] a contact list” by “identifying gameplay in the contactlist,” as the claim
`
`3||requires. This failure of proof provides a further basis to deny BlackBerry’s motion
`
`4||for summary judgment.
`
`5
`
`BlackBerry’s theory of infringement also fails with respect to limitation [9.b]
`
`6||because BlackBerry has not articulated what its theory (if any) actually is — andits
`
`7||expert’s attempts to do so at his deposition called his credibility into question.
`
`8||Limitation [9.b] recites, in relevant part, the step of “preparing game messages /o be
`
`9||sent to the particular contact by including gameprogressdata in an instant messaging
`
`10||message and an identifier to associate the data with the game application.” A clear
`
`11||requirementof this claim languageis that the “identifier” must be included in a “game
`
`
`
`12||message” that is sent to the particular contact (e.g., the other game player).
`
`
`
`
`
`13||BlackBerry’s expert agreed. (Schonfeld Dep., 60:2-17.)
`
`14
`
`The only example of the claimed “identifier” in BlackBerry’s motion is
`
`
`
`15||“a banner including the name of the game being played.” (Mot. at 7-8.)
`
`
`
`16||But BlackBerry’s expert admitted that he did not know whether that information is
`
`
`
`17||actually sent fo the particular contact, as the claim expressly requires. (Schonfeld
`
`| 0
`
`|
`2)|
`22
`The deposition of BlackBerry’s expert played out like a game of cat-and-mouse,
`
`23||in which BlackBerry’s expert repeatedly demurred as to what, if anything, was the
`
`24||“identifier to associate the data with the game application” in the accused product —
`
`25||repeatedly testifying that such an identifier existed but never identifying whatit was.
`
`
`
`26||(Schonfeld Dep., 57:2-58:21, 61:20-63:18, 70:17-72:15.) The section of his
`
`27||declaration addressing limitation [9.b] identified two different [Ds used with Instant
`
`
`
`28||Games — but the declaration does not state whether
`
`;
`.
`.
`Case Nos. 2: 18~cv-01844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`8
`
`011
`
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`(°250, 7173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`011
`
`

`

`Case
`
`woonDBwnfFWYNY
`
`NmNONYNYWNWNWNWNNOHe&mmonDBDOnfFWNYOKYCOOHOMONWDOnFkWYNYKSCO
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 12o0f25 Page ID #:18712
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`those IDs (individually or collectively) correspond to the claimed “identifier.”
`
`(Schonfeld Decl., 9942, 55.) The reason for his hesitancy was apparent from the
`
`deposition— BlackBerry’s expert had no idea whether any of these supposed
`
`identifiers was actually included in any “game messagesto be sent to the particular
`
`contact,” as the claim expressly requires.
`(Schonfeld Dep., 63:24-64:5, 149:13-20,
`150:20-151:19.) As for the7. he had no idea howit was generated, howit
`wasrepresented, or whether it was generated by the Instant Game or by Facebook.
`
`(d., 78:3-13.)
`
`Theresult ofthe lack of knowledge of BlackBerry’s expert was an unsupported
`and conditional opinion; for example, with respect to the aa. BlackBerry’s
`expert testified:
`
`po In other words, to the extent an identifier in Facebook’s
`system meets the claim requirementfor an identifier — which BlackBerry’s expert did
`
`not know — it was part of his infringement theory. Summary judgment cannot be
`
`granted based on equivocations and evasions.
`
`Counsel for BlackBerry then conducted an improper, leading redirect at the
`
`close of the deposition. Counsel handed his expert pages of the deposition of a
`Facebook witnessa. which were nevercited or included with the expert’s
`declaration or BlackBerry’s motion, and asked the expert to read them.
`(Schonfeld
`
`Dep., 142:12-25, 144:4-13, 146:4-147:1.) Underthe guise of attempting to refresh the
`
`memory of the witness, this highly suggestive examination by BlackBerry’s counsel
`guided the expert to a brand new ID —a hia. which was never previously
`identified. (/d., 143:2-144:2, 154:18-155:5.)’
`
`’ Tt is not clear if BlackBerry intendsto changeits theory to now assertthat the ,|
`a discussed late in the deposition is the claimed “identifier” for purposes of claim
`[9.b]. This would be inappropriate, as any ,lof argumentrelies on arguments
`
`Case Nos. 2: I8cv-Ol 844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`9
`
`012
`
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENTOF INFRINGEMENT
`(°250, 7173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`012
`
`

`

`Case
`
`woonDBwnfFWYNY
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 13 o0f 25 Page ID #:18713
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`In the end, the repeated equivocations,flat out lack of knowledge, and changed
`
`opinions of BlackBerry’s expert call into question his preparation, knowledge, and
`
`ultimately his credibility as a witness. See 7ypeRight Keyboard Corp., 374 F.3d at
`
`1158-59 (“[S]ummary judgmentis not appropriate where the opposing party offers
`
`specific facts that call
`
`into question the credibility of the movants witnesses.”).
`
`A reasonable jury could conclude that the testimony of BlackBerry’s expert — the sole
`
`evidence offered in support of the present motion — should notbecredited.
`
`B.
`
`BlackBerry Has Not Shown Infringement of the ’?173 Patent
`
`BlackBerry has also failed to show infringement of the ’173 patent by the
`
`accused Facebook website and Instagram application. Again, BlackBerry hasfailed
`
`to carry its burden with respect to multiple limitations of the asserted claims.
`
`Claim 13, from which the sole asserted claim depends, recites a “computer
`
`readable medium”(transitory or non-transitory) that, when loaded into a device,
`
`performs the following functions: “displaying a tag list including tags from one or
`
`moretag sources matching a searchstring” [13.a], and “displaying a tag type indicator
`
`for each tag appearing in the tag list, said tag type being indicative of a tag source
`
`associated with the tag” [13.b]. As with the ’250 patent discussed above, to fully
`
`understand the flaws with BlackBerry’s infringement theory, Facebook will unpack
`
`and analyze that theory in more detail than was provided in BlackBerry’s motion.
`
`A keylimitation is the display of a “tag type indicatorfor each tag appearing
`
`in thelist,” as recited in claim [13.b]. The Facebook website and Instagram provide
`
`photo tagging features that present the user withalist of tag suggestions, allowing the
`
`NYNONHNWHONONWNNYWNNOeH#-#§-HFHFEeOOEeOOSeonDBDOnfFWNYOKYCOOHOMONWDOnFkWYNYKSCO
`
`user to specify a particular tag for a photo.
`
`(Wang Decl., 49; Douglas Decl., 43.)
`
`The two screen captures below show examples of how the Facebook website and
`
`Instagram can present tag suggestionsto the user:
`
`and evidence not included with BlackBerry’s motion. BlackBerry never amendedits
`motion or expert declaration to discuss the
`, or to withdraw BlackBerry’s
`prior reliance on the other (discredited) identifiers discussed earlier at the deposition.
`Opp. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
`(7250, 7173, 7120 PATENTS)
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844:
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`10
`
`013
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`013
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 14of25 Page ID #:18714
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Facebook Website
`
`Instagram App
`
`oOoornDBDnHfFWYNY
`
`return
`NYNONHNYONOWNNYWNNOeH|#§—|HESEeOeOOSe|onDBDOOSFWwWNYKYCOOHOWONWDOnFfWYNYKKOC
`
`
`
`ea’
`
`Derrick Rose ©
`a Jerrickros
`10M like
`
`tt
`
`Refined Dermatology
`
`Kalia Dermatology and La...
`
`© Los Gatos Dermatology
`
`Aaron Derbacher,Your Lo...
`2.1Klike
`th
`
`Derek Deaton Real Estate...
`
`Derma = Clinic
`
`Hafid Dens: alsBus<
`
`=DerekJetere
`
`derive.obvoxious
`
`=
`
`hafidderradji ©
`
`derschulteofficial ©
`
`« haustierkost
`fix.
`
`ay dereckjoubert
`
`mrdblanks ©
`
`g
`
`h
`
`xicivibinim iim
`
`123 © &
`
`space
`
`(Douglas Decl., §3; Wang Decl., §9.) BlackBerry contends that the tag suggestion
`
`lists shown above correspondto the claimed “tag list” of claim 13.
`
`As noted, a key limitation recites the display of “a tag type indicatorfor each
`
`tag appearingin the tag list’ [13.b], which onits face requires a tag type indicator for
`
`every tag in the list. But the tag suggestion lists shown above (and every example
`
`provided by BlackBerry’s expert) show tag suggestions unaccompanied by any kind
`
`of visual indicator. For example, the screen capture on the left above shows “Derek
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844:
`Fig000605 GWKKS0
`
`I
`
`014
`
`Opp. To MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JuDeMENTOFINFRINGEMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`014
`
`

`

`Case
`
`woonDBwnfFWYNY
`
`NmNONYNYWNWNWNWNNOHe&mmonDBDOnfFWNYOKYCOOHOMONWDOnFkWYNYKSCO
`
`Instagram and Facebook in which BlackBerry placed © officialcarrey|_|red boxes over empty areas of the screen to show the
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 15 o0f25 Page ID #:18715
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Rogers” with nothing more than his name and a small profile icon (neither of which
`
`BlackBerry contendsis a “tag type indicator”). The screen capture on the right shows
`
`substantially the same for Dereck Joubert (amongothers). All of the example screen
`
`captures provided by BlackBerry show similar examples of tag suggestion lists
`
`containing items displayed without any kind of accompanyingindicator. (Mot. at 14;
`
`Schonfeld Decl., §9§35, 36, 84, 88, 105, 129.)
`
`How can BlackBerry claim that Facebook and Instagram display “a tag type
`
`indicator for each tag appearing in the tag lisf’ [13.b], when the accused products
`
`indisputably display tag suggestions without any such indicator? Or stated more
`
`simply, how can the absence of an indicator qualify as an “indicator”?
`
`BlackBerry responded to this question by inventing a new term— “blank
`
`indicator” — whichit claimsis displayed alongside certain tag suggestions. (Schonfeld
`Decl., 986
` (underlining
`added).) BlackBerry’s motion even goes as far as to show screen captures of
`
`locations of these supposed “blank indicators” (see example from BlackBerry’s
`
`motion shownat the right). (See Mot. at 14.)
`
`There is no such thing as a “blank indicator.” (Wang Decl., 913; Douglas Decl.,
`
`499.) What BlackBerry calls a “blank indicator”is actually the absence of any indicator
`at all. (/d.; Schonfeld Dep., 116:19-22
` (citing
`Schonfeld Decl., 950); see also id., 115:5-10.) BlackBerry’s reliance on its newly
`
`concocted “blank indicator” does not even remotely meetits burden of showing that
`
`claim [13.b] is satisfied; to the contrary, it establishes non-infringement.
`
`BlackBerry’s attempts to rationalize its “blank indicator” argumentare easily
`
`rejected. BlackBerry arguesthat the absence of any displayed indicator for Facebook
`Cu Nos. 218-84
`1
`On20MSYPakSay
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KS
`ME!
`NFRINGEME
`o-02695
`GW(RSs)
`(°250, 7173, °120 PATENTS)
`
`015
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`015
`
`

`

`Case)2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08/08/19 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:18716
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSEDTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1||friends and unverified Instagram profiles somehow qualifies as a “tag type indicator”
`
`2||because, according to BlackBerry, the lack of an indicator distinguishes those tag
`
`3||suggestions from other suggestions where somekindof indicator is in fact displayed.
`
`4||(Mot. at 18; Schonfeld Decl., §§86, 87, 107.) But arguing that the absence of an
`
`5||indicator somehow qualifies as an “indicator” cannot be reconciled with the plain
`
`6||claim language whichexpressly recites “displaying a tag type indicatorfor each tag.”
`
`7||“Displaying” requires an affirmative act of displaying the claimed “indicator.” In the
`
`8||case of tag suggestions for Facebook friends and Instagram unverified profiles,
`
`
`
`9||no such indicatoris displayed. (Wang Decl., §13; Douglas Decl., 9 n.2.) In other
`
`
`
`10||words, the step of “displaying a tag type indicator” does not occur for those tag
`
`11||suggestions.
`
`12
`
`BlackBerry has not established,
`
`for purposes of summary judgment or
`
`13||otherwise, that Facebook and Instagram display “a tag type indicator for each tag
`
`14||appearing in the list.” BlackBerry never asked for a construction of “tag type
`
`1